4 ms·

Fix the fact that health insurance, retirement program, etc are all tied to traditional employment rather than forcing everyone into a square box.

nerdponx 6y ago
Yes, this! People need more stable access to basic needs: healthcare, education, food, water, housing, communications (some kind of basic phone & internet access). This will necessarily lead to greater labor market mobility and therefore greater market power by labor providers (i.e. employees and contractors).
oramit 6y ago
Indeed - this is the real problem. We've bolted on so many things to the employee/employer relationship that should not be there. It's no surprise that contractor vs full time questions become so fraught when as a matter of policy, we've made that distinction hugely important. I want there to be more flexibility in work arrangements. That would be awesome, but the only way to make that work is to sever Health care and retirement plans from employment.
kevincox 6y ago
This is the weirdest thing to me. Why do I get whatever health plan my employer selected? I shouldn't have to switch jobs to change my health insurance. And sometimes there is a delay before your coverage starts at the new pace, or I want to take a couple of months off. Now I have no coverage! This is nonsense. It seems that the main argument for it is that companies have more negotiating power, but that seems like it would largely change if there was a significant market for individual/family health insurance where competition can actually exist between the people who are benefiting. Employment should be simple, I do work and they pay me. Instead so many critical aspects of my life are tied to it as you mention.
standardUser 6y ago
We disincentivize starting business (anti-entrepreneurial), work hour flexibly (anti-family), working independently (anti-individualism) and instead heavily incentivize reporting to a boss, on their schedule, at their chosen location, and getting paid only whatever you can convince them to pay you.
kgin 6y ago
Absolutely, a job is a job. Or at least, that's all it should be. Yet the current law treats it something closer to an adoption of the employee by the company.

nerdponx 6y ago

Yes, this! People need more stable access to basic needs: healthcare, education, food, water, housing, communications (some kind of basic phone & internet access). This will necessarily lead to greater labor market mobility and therefore greater market power by labor providers (i.e. employees and contractors).

oramit 6y ago

Indeed - this is the real problem. We've bolted on so many things to the employee/employer relationship that should not be there. It's no surprise that contractor vs full time questions become so fraught when as a matter of policy, we've made that distinction hugely important. I want there to be more flexibility in work arrangements. That would be awesome, but the only way to make that work is to sever Health care and retirement plans from employment.

kevincox 6y ago

This is the weirdest thing to me. Why do I get whatever health plan my employer selected? I shouldn't have to switch jobs to change my health insurance. And sometimes there is a delay before your coverage starts at the new pace, or I want to take a couple of months off. Now I have no coverage! This is nonsense. It seems that the main argument for it is that companies have more negotiating power, but that seems like it would largely change if there was a significant market for individual/family health insurance where competition can actually exist between the people who are benefiting. Employment should be simple, I do work and they pay me. Instead so many critical aspects of my life are tied to it as you mention.

standardUser 6y ago

We disincentivize starting business (anti-entrepreneurial), work hour flexibly (anti-family), working independently (anti-individualism) and instead heavily incentivize reporting to a boss, on their schedule, at their chosen location, and getting paid only whatever you can convince them to pay you.

kgin 6y ago

Absolutely, a job is a job. Or at least, that's all it should be. Yet the current law treats it something closer to an adoption of the employee by the company.