4 ms·

This is an odd, but interesting, argument in favour of socialized healthcare. It is like the opposite extreme of companies that only hire people for just under

This is an odd, but interesting, argument in favour of socialized healthcare. It is like the opposite extreme of companies that only hire people for just under full time hours in order to dodge healthcare costs.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
It could also just be an argument for letting people purchase health insurance in healthcare.gov with pre tax income, currently a benefit only for employees employed by employers offering it. I would even go so far as to limit businesses’ ability to compensate people in cash or equity only. That would help foster far more transparency on what wages really are and help sellers of labor easily compare offers from employers. All tax incentives should be decoupled from employers and offered directly to all taxpayers equally.
bsder 5y ago
It is a huge argument in favor of socialized healthcare. However, if you want to leave it to "the market", the proper solution to both sides of the equation is that companies should be required by law to pay one "person unit of benefits" for every 40 hours worked (healthcare, vacation, pension/401K) no matter whether those hours are done by 4 people or a single person. You can either pay it to a person or it goes into a government fund to help cover the people being shortchanged (ie. food stamps and healthcare for WalMart employees). This would immediately stop all the stupidity around "just under full time hours" as well as "too much overtime".
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Getting rid of the employer from non cash/equity compensation (especially tax advantaged) completely would be even easier and more effective for making markets transparent.
- monkeybutton 5y ago
  >companies should be required by law to pay one "person unit of benefits" for every 40 hours worked Yes, the government could levy this "fee" on all employer-employee relationships and put it into some "government fund".. Wait a second! That sounds suspiciously familiar.
  - bsder 5y ago
    The point is that once you make it revenue neutral, most companies would rather pay it out to an employee rather than pay it out to the government. Yes, there would likely be a few obtuse companies (maybe make paying it to the government 10% more expensive than paying it directly to the company), but most would simply grant their existing benefits directly to the employee once they couldn't make any money off of not doing so.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

It could also just be an argument for letting people purchase health insurance in healthcare.gov with pre tax income, currently a benefit only for employees employed by employers offering it. I would even go so far as to limit businesses’ ability to compensate people in cash or equity only. That would help foster far more transparency on what wages really are and help sellers of labor easily compare offers from employers. All tax incentives should be decoupled from employers and offered directly to all taxpayers equally.

bsder 5y ago

It is a huge argument in favor of socialized healthcare. However, if you want to leave it to "the market", the proper solution to both sides of the equation is that companies should be required by law to pay one "person unit of benefits" for every 40 hours worked (healthcare, vacation, pension/401K) no matter whether those hours are done by 4 people or a single person. You can either pay it to a person or it goes into a government fund to help cover the people being shortchanged (ie. food stamps and healthcare for WalMart employees). This would immediately stop all the stupidity around "just under full time hours" as well as "too much overtime".

lotsofpulp 5y ago
Getting rid of the employer from non cash/equity compensation (especially tax advantaged) completely would be even easier and more effective for making markets transparent.
monkeybutton 5y ago
>companies should be required by law to pay one "person unit of benefits" for every 40 hours worked Yes, the government could levy this "fee" on all employer-employee relationships and put it into some "government fund".. Wait a second! That sounds suspiciously familiar.
- bsder 5y ago
  The point is that once you make it revenue neutral, most companies would rather pay it out to an employee rather than pay it out to the government. Yes, there would likely be a few obtuse companies (maybe make paying it to the government 10% more expensive than paying it directly to the company), but most would simply grant their existing benefits directly to the employee once they couldn't make any money off of not doing so.