6 ms·

I mean, I would argue casual labor should be fazed out because corporations lobbied to make benefits (specifically healthcare) tied to employment. You can't hav

I mean, I would argue casual labor should be fazed out because corporations lobbied to make benefits (specifically healthcare) tied to employment. You can't have your cake and eat it too, if we want a flexible workforce then life-necessities cannot be tied to permanent employment.

ghaff 7y ago
>corporations lobbied to make benefits (specifically healthcare) tied to employment Unions probably did that more than management given that at least some of it was driven by wage and price controls during certain periods. Though that's still corporations in some sense.
- daotoad 7y ago
  The real driver of health benefits tied to employment was that businesses were not allowed to give huge wage hikes during World War II. In order to compete for very scarce workers, businesses added a variety of benefits, including health insurance. Around this time, medicine actually started being effective, which has led to an ever increasing set of costs (now we use million dollar machines and whacky drugs by the bucket load, when it the past they just tried to keep you comfortable or stop you from bleeding to death). As the cost of health benefits increased, corporations lobbied for tax-exemptions providing this benefit. Congress gladly obliged because it seemed to be an effective way to get everyone (who mattered) insured. This really cemented our current system in place.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    > was that businesses were not allowed to give huge wage hikes during World War II Interestingly war industry wages far as I saw were specified by the government contracts. They were good wages compared to pre WWII. My uncle busted out in WWII because all of his employees left for the shipyards.
Digory 7y ago
Life necessities became tied to permanent employment because of income and tax policy, not some corporate desire to control heath-care.
- zanny 7y ago
  The tax code is totally corporate dictated and to their interests - the huge bias against self employment is evident of that, whereas in a more competent economy policymakers would acknowledge the strong growth potential of incentivizing small business creation.
  - Digory 7y ago
    This was policy makers dictating to corporations, not the other way. It was a product of (1) intense focus on wage freezes during the labor shortage of World War II, and (2) the growth of unions, which focused on winning concessions from management, not government.[0] I agree it's a terrible policy. Corporate management now accepts and exploits it. But it was not a decision by 'capital' to spite labor or self-employment. It is the consequence of 'progressive' tax, regulation and labor policy. [0]http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/67493CA6B837EDF285257B160048DD49?OpenDocument http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/67493CA6B8...
- mathw 7y ago
  No, it's because of a political decision. In the UK, you get healthcare regardless of your employment status or insurance cover. You don't get somewhere to live without a source of income, and our benefits system is being systematically shredded by a government ideologically opposed to the very concept (currently campaigning for tomorrow's election on a variety of lovely talking points like "poor people are just stupider" and "disabled people shouldn't have to be paid the minimum wage because they don't understand money"), but for the time being at least we have healthcare for all paid for by general taxation. We should have housing and food for all as well, but I'm not sure anybody's seriously looked into how to do that.
kaitai 7y ago
Yes, the history of tying health insurance (and thus health care, in the US) to employment is an interesting series of political compromises and deals -- and it has such extensive effects on day labor and the gig economy and entrepreneurism. For folks who have health conditions (mental or physical) which mean they can work intermittently, the tie between employeeship and health care is really detrimental. For entrepreneurs, the tie between being and employee and having health care is detrimental. For public health, the tie is detrimental! Rooming houses had a variety of functions. My grandfather lived in one while a young adult; he was also a butcher at the co-op grocery, and made sure to get his landlady good cuts of meat since he knew he'd benefit at meals ;) There is some interesting history, too, of how rooming houses run by Respectable Matrons facilitated the entry of young women into the labor force and the migration of labor from rural areas to the cities. Sylvia Plath might be the most famous recent writer about this... but see [1], [2]. Last, I'm very happy to see near me a lot of development with first-floor commercial and living above that. The most recent development near where I live has 5-6 floors, of which most are apartments, but street level has a pie shop, a restaurant, dry cleaner, etc etc. I am delighted! It increases our quality of life. [1] https://www.thecut.com/2015/03/why-i-live-in-an-all-women-boardinghouse.html https://www.thecut.com/2015/03/why-i-live-in-an-all-women-bo... [2] https://www.citylab.com/life/2016/02/brief-history-of-co-living-spaces/470115/ https://www.citylab.com/life/2016/02/brief-history-of-co-liv...
WalterBright 7y ago
> corporations lobbied to make benefits (specifically healthcare) tied to employment They didn't. It came about because in WW2 labor wages were fixed by law. In order to attract workers, employers could not offer more pay. But they were able to offer benefits, like health insurance. It stuck because employer paid benefits were paid out of pre-tax income, while if the worker paid for them himself it would be from post-tax income. I.e. it was cheaper to provide it through the employer, thanks to the tax code.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  > It stuck because employer paid benefits were paid out of pre-tax income, while if the worker paid for them himself it would be from post-tax income. It stuck because of corruption since the legislature won’t fix the situation, a situation that conveniently provides a competitive benefit to large companies with lots of lobbying power versus small business and individuals. Same garage with the pitiful restriction on IRA contributions (zero if you have a spouse that has 401k), whereas people who work for employers giving 401k get $19k. Absolutely no reason for the discrimination to exist other than it benefits bigger, entrenched businesses at the expense of smaller businesses and individuals.

ghaff 7y ago

>corporations lobbied to make benefits (specifically healthcare) tied to employment Unions probably did that more than management given that at least some of it was driven by wage and price controls during certain periods. Though that's still corporations in some sense.

daotoad 7y ago
The real driver of health benefits tied to employment was that businesses were not allowed to give huge wage hikes during World War II. In order to compete for very scarce workers, businesses added a variety of benefits, including health insurance. Around this time, medicine actually started being effective, which has led to an ever increasing set of costs (now we use million dollar machines and whacky drugs by the bucket load, when it the past they just tried to keep you comfortable or stop you from bleeding to death). As the cost of health benefits increased, corporations lobbied for tax-exemptions providing this benefit. Congress gladly obliged because it seemed to be an effective way to get everyone (who mattered) insured. This really cemented our current system in place.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  > was that businesses were not allowed to give huge wage hikes during World War II Interestingly war industry wages far as I saw were specified by the government contracts. They were good wages compared to pre WWII. My uncle busted out in WWII because all of his employees left for the shipyards.

Digory 7y ago

Life necessities became tied to permanent employment because of income and tax policy, not some corporate desire to control heath-care.

zanny 7y ago
The tax code is totally corporate dictated and to their interests - the huge bias against self employment is evident of that, whereas in a more competent economy policymakers would acknowledge the strong growth potential of incentivizing small business creation.
- Digory 7y ago
  This was policy makers dictating to corporations, not the other way. It was a product of (1) intense focus on wage freezes during the labor shortage of World War II, and (2) the growth of unions, which focused on winning concessions from management, not government.[0] I agree it's a terrible policy. Corporate management now accepts and exploits it. But it was not a decision by 'capital' to spite labor or self-employment. It is the consequence of 'progressive' tax, regulation and labor policy. [0]http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/67493CA6B837EDF285257B160048DD49?OpenDocument http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/67493CA6B8...
mathw 7y ago
No, it's because of a political decision. In the UK, you get healthcare regardless of your employment status or insurance cover. You don't get somewhere to live without a source of income, and our benefits system is being systematically shredded by a government ideologically opposed to the very concept (currently campaigning for tomorrow's election on a variety of lovely talking points like "poor people are just stupider" and "disabled people shouldn't have to be paid the minimum wage because they don't understand money"), but for the time being at least we have healthcare for all paid for by general taxation. We should have housing and food for all as well, but I'm not sure anybody's seriously looked into how to do that.

kaitai 7y ago

Yes, the history of tying health insurance (and thus health care, in the US) to employment is an interesting series of political compromises and deals -- and it has such extensive effects on day labor and the gig economy and entrepreneurism. For folks who have health conditions (mental or physical) which mean they can work intermittently, the tie between employeeship and health care is really detrimental. For entrepreneurs, the tie between being and employee and having health care is detrimental. For public health, the tie is detrimental! Rooming houses had a variety of functions. My grandfather lived in one while a young adult; he was also a butcher at the co-op grocery, and made sure to get his landlady good cuts of meat since he knew he'd benefit at meals ;) There is some interesting history, too, of how rooming houses run by Respectable Matrons facilitated the entry of young women into the labor force and the migration of labor from rural areas to the cities. Sylvia Plath might be the most famous recent writer about this... but see [1], [2]. Last, I'm very happy to see near me a lot of development with first-floor commercial and living above that. The most recent development near where I live has 5-6 floors, of which most are apartments, but street level has a pie shop, a restaurant, dry cleaner, etc etc. I am delighted! It increases our quality of life. [1] https://www.thecut.com/2015/03/why-i-live-in-an-all-women-boardinghouse.html https://www.thecut.com/2015/03/why-i-live-in-an-all-women-bo... [2] https://www.citylab.com/life/2016/02/brief-history-of-co-living-spaces/470115/ https://www.citylab.com/life/2016/02/brief-history-of-co-liv...

WalterBright 7y ago

> corporations lobbied to make benefits (specifically healthcare) tied to employment They didn't. It came about because in WW2 labor wages were fixed by law. In order to attract workers, employers could not offer more pay. But they were able to offer benefits, like health insurance. It stuck because employer paid benefits were paid out of pre-tax income, while if the worker paid for them himself it would be from post-tax income. I.e. it was cheaper to provide it through the employer, thanks to the tax code.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
> It stuck because employer paid benefits were paid out of pre-tax income, while if the worker paid for them himself it would be from post-tax income. It stuck because of corruption since the legislature won’t fix the situation, a situation that conveniently provides a competitive benefit to large companies with lots of lobbying power versus small business and individuals. Same garage with the pitiful restriction on IRA contributions (zero if you have a spouse that has 401k), whereas people who work for employers giving 401k get $19k. Absolutely no reason for the discrimination to exist other than it benefits bigger, entrenched businesses at the expense of smaller businesses and individuals.