6 ms·

If your company cannot afford to stay in the black with real employees (as opposed to contractors), you need to re-evaluate your business model. Edit: and the

If your company cannot afford to stay in the black with real employees (as opposed to contractors), you need to re-evaluate your business model. Edit: and the downvotes are rolling in! Would anyone who has downvoted this comment care to share why?

socalnate1 11y ago
Err, they did. They is why they are shutting down.
- aestetix 11y ago
  I realize that. I'm simply pointing out that this is not the last time we'll see this kind of news.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
Or perhaps we need to re-evaluate our laws surrounding employment. Events like this (supposing they were caused by employment laws) are perfect illustrations of how overregulation kills jobs.
- aestetix 11y ago
  There are laws surrounding employment? California is an at-will state. Further, 1099 contractors don't get health insurance, workers comp, or any coverage by the employer. There's also no assurance of long-term employment, thus no reason for the company to be loyal.
  - jes 11y ago
    Yes, there are laws surrounding employment. Minimum wage laws are one example. IRS regulations/tests as to whether you are an employee or a contractor are another.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    There are laws surrounding employment? California has extensive laws that impose fixed costs on employers (paid family leave, for example). CA is also notorious for lawsuit risks. There are also federal laws - Obamacare for anyone working 31+ hours, and many more. In economics, fixed costs and regulations like this are called "rigidities", and are well known to cause shortages/surpluses and misallocation of resources. (E.g., according to Keynesian economics, such things cause most/all recessions.)
    - aestetix 11y ago
      Those laws are usually based on the size of the company. FMLA (not CA, but relevant) only applies to companies of over 50 employeees, and if you've been there for more than a year. You can get around a lot of those laws with using contractors. Regarding Obamacare, one of the criticisms of the law was that companies promptly began offering employees one hour fewer a week than would meet the health care requirement.
  - eonw 11y ago
    almost every employee i ever fired in california got some kind of check as an offering to ask them not to sue for more... at will is misleading statement in a litigious state.
- xenadu02 11y ago
  I agree. It would be far more efficient to have the government provide a baseline level of services to everyone. Then the vast majority of small companies and startups employing contractors wouldn't have to worry about it. We already have a baseline level of retirement covered with Social Security. Companies who want to attract more talented employees offer enhanced retirement benefits in 401k plans or other incentives like stock options. I propose we should give everyone healthcare regardless of employment; the exchanges should be open to all and offer Medicare as the baseline plan for free to anyone who wants it. I further propose that the government provide unemployment that matches your salary for 3 months, 80% for 9 months, then 50% for a year. I also propose free training and schooling so people can switch careers if needed. Now getting fired or "laid off" doesn't mean destitution... it means time to find a new job or go back to school to train for a different one. Then employers can be free of a lot of these pesky "regulations" and "taxes". We can pay for it by soaking billionaires with taxes which won't have any negative effect on our economy because we are overflowing with capital seeking return right now (and have been for 15-20 years). The only downside is listening to them whine and moan about how oppressed they are because they're money-penis isn't as big as they'd like. ... or were you just talking about fucking over everyone but the billionaires? (That's usually what "overregulation" means in this context)
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    I'm talking specifically about imposing fixed costs on the purchase of labor. I'd propose a different method of handling a "baseline level of services", specifically a Basic Job Guarantee which pays only in-kind benefits [1]. But that's a somewhat orthogonal issue. The key point is that when you impose kinks and missing regions in supply&demand curves, bad things happen. [1] I.e., you show up, do 8 hours of work for the govt and in return your basic needs are met; you get a govt dorm, govt brand clothes and 3 nutritious govt meals/day in a cheap location.
moommooo 11y ago
The labor force participation rate is at its lowest level in 40 years. When companies like Homejoy come in and make it easy for people to pick up gig work, they are making real and substantial contributions to human welfare.
- aestetix 11y ago
  That's a much more complex issue, which involves how many people simply give up trying to find work after six months or so, as well as companies replacing employees with automated robots and such. I would be much more in favor of Homejoy using contractors if they also allowed them to become a full time employee if they desired to, after meeting some requirement (like working there for 3 months).
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Is there any evidence that Homejoy did anything to substantially increase the number of people working in housecleaning, or the pay in the field?

socalnate1 11y ago

Err, they did. They is why they are shutting down.

aestetix 11y ago
I realize that. I'm simply pointing out that this is not the last time we'll see this kind of news.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

Or perhaps we need to re-evaluate our laws surrounding employment. Events like this (supposing they were caused by employment laws) are perfect illustrations of how overregulation kills jobs.

aestetix 11y ago
There are laws surrounding employment? California is an at-will state. Further, 1099 contractors don't get health insurance, workers comp, or any coverage by the employer. There's also no assurance of long-term employment, thus no reason for the company to be loyal.
- jes 11y ago
  Yes, there are laws surrounding employment. Minimum wage laws are one example. IRS regulations/tests as to whether you are an employee or a contractor are another.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  There are laws surrounding employment? California has extensive laws that impose fixed costs on employers (paid family leave, for example). CA is also notorious for lawsuit risks. There are also federal laws - Obamacare for anyone working 31+ hours, and many more. In economics, fixed costs and regulations like this are called "rigidities", and are well known to cause shortages/surpluses and misallocation of resources. (E.g., according to Keynesian economics, such things cause most/all recessions.)
  - aestetix 11y ago
    Those laws are usually based on the size of the company. FMLA (not CA, but relevant) only applies to companies of over 50 employeees, and if you've been there for more than a year. You can get around a lot of those laws with using contractors. Regarding Obamacare, one of the criticisms of the law was that companies promptly began offering employees one hour fewer a week than would meet the health care requirement.
- eonw 11y ago
  almost every employee i ever fired in california got some kind of check as an offering to ask them not to sue for more... at will is misleading statement in a litigious state.
xenadu02 11y ago
I agree. It would be far more efficient to have the government provide a baseline level of services to everyone. Then the vast majority of small companies and startups employing contractors wouldn't have to worry about it. We already have a baseline level of retirement covered with Social Security. Companies who want to attract more talented employees offer enhanced retirement benefits in 401k plans or other incentives like stock options. I propose we should give everyone healthcare regardless of employment; the exchanges should be open to all and offer Medicare as the baseline plan for free to anyone who wants it. I further propose that the government provide unemployment that matches your salary for 3 months, 80% for 9 months, then 50% for a year. I also propose free training and schooling so people can switch careers if needed. Now getting fired or "laid off" doesn't mean destitution... it means time to find a new job or go back to school to train for a different one. Then employers can be free of a lot of these pesky "regulations" and "taxes". We can pay for it by soaking billionaires with taxes which won't have any negative effect on our economy because we are overflowing with capital seeking return right now (and have been for 15-20 years). The only downside is listening to them whine and moan about how oppressed they are because they're money-penis isn't as big as they'd like. ... or were you just talking about fucking over everyone but the billionaires? (That's usually what "overregulation" means in this context)
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  I'm talking specifically about imposing fixed costs on the purchase of labor. I'd propose a different method of handling a "baseline level of services", specifically a Basic Job Guarantee which pays only in-kind benefits [1]. But that's a somewhat orthogonal issue. The key point is that when you impose kinks and missing regions in supply&demand curves, bad things happen. [1] I.e., you show up, do 8 hours of work for the govt and in return your basic needs are met; you get a govt dorm, govt brand clothes and 3 nutritious govt meals/day in a cheap location.

moommooo 11y ago

The labor force participation rate is at its lowest level in 40 years. When companies like Homejoy come in and make it easy for people to pick up gig work, they are making real and substantial contributions to human welfare.

aestetix 11y ago
That's a much more complex issue, which involves how many people simply give up trying to find work after six months or so, as well as companies replacing employees with automated robots and such. I would be much more in favor of Homejoy using contractors if they also allowed them to become a full time employee if they desired to, after meeting some requirement (like working there for 3 months).
dragonwriter 11y ago
Is there any evidence that Homejoy did anything to substantially increase the number of people working in housecleaning, or the pay in the field?