Comment by kraken_cult
10 hours ago
shakes fist at sky "if only we didn't have to pay those pesky benefits then we wouldn't be forced to make the roles abusive contractor/part-time roles...Wild people even try to take this stance.
10 hours ago
shakes fist at sky "if only we didn't have to pay those pesky benefits then we wouldn't be forced to make the roles abusive contractor/part-time roles...Wild people even try to take this stance.
I'm baffled. Do you not see the normative vs descriptive claim here?
The reality is that requiring benefits imposes a cost, and employers manage that cost by limiting who qualifies. So yes, this hurt many workers - and disproportionately impacted disadvantaged people who didn't make the full-time cliff.
Ignoring increntives is actually shaking your fist at the sky.
Then can we agree on a government funded safety net for the sake of labor mobility? ;)
Typically the real disagreement here is over whether workers should get benefits at all.
EDIT: can we get another `vouch` or two for groundzeros2015's currently [dead] reply? It's well-argued and an olive branch and deserves to be visible.
I do agree. A government funded benefit is an explicit tax and spend. A mandate to provide a benefit is a hidden tax where it's not clear who is paying.