...helpless cogs in a corporate profit machine?
August 31, 2015 10:08 AM Subscribe
Having trouble drilling through this. It seemed like the argument was, part time employees are exploited so lets embrace exploitive gig economics instead of iterating on the part time employee definition to bring that body of workers fully into the safety net.
Which seems bonkers. So I feel like I missed a "But really...!" paragragh somewhere.
posted by Slackermagee at 10:21 AM on August 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
Which seems bonkers. So I feel like I missed a "But really...!" paragragh somewhere.
posted by Slackermagee at 10:21 AM on August 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
This is a funny article, since it seems to spend a lot of time saying "well, paid vacation, regular hours and employer contribution to social security aren't actually that great because...." and then listing some weird unsatisfactory thing like "your paid vacation days are actually escrow on your wages". I mean, yes, paid vacation is part of my wages. However, if I were a temp - and I have been, for long periods - I wouldn't be getting more money because my employer figures 'heck, I'm not paying vacation'.
This type of article always misses the point because it doesn't want to say, basically, that the working class and the employing class have nothing in common. Employers aren't sitting around saying "gee, I'm not paying my casual laborer's social security; I'd better offer her more to make up for that fact"; they're saying "it's great that I don't have to pay into their social security because casual laborers don't really understand exactly how all that works and wouldn't have the power to force me to pay more even if they did". Employers are going to screw the workers as hard as they can unless they're stopped by legal or mass pressure. It's not a misunderstanding or a "loophole"; it's how the system works.
This article seems to be written from the same standpoint where people say "hm, I don't get paid vacation or sick days, so obviously the fair thing to do is to make everyone a casual worker".
It will take much deeper thinking to come up with the right incentives for companies to understand the value of taking care of all their workers on an equal footing."
Yeah, I'll say. The kind of deeper thinking that one does in the shadow of the guillotine, probably, if we're lucky enough to get that far.
posted by Frowner at 10:26 AM on August 31, 2015 [98 favorites]
This type of article always misses the point because it doesn't want to say, basically, that the working class and the employing class have nothing in common. Employers aren't sitting around saying "gee, I'm not paying my casual laborer's social security; I'd better offer her more to make up for that fact"; they're saying "it's great that I don't have to pay into their social security because casual laborers don't really understand exactly how all that works and wouldn't have the power to force me to pay more even if they did". Employers are going to screw the workers as hard as they can unless they're stopped by legal or mass pressure. It's not a misunderstanding or a "loophole"; it's how the system works.
This article seems to be written from the same standpoint where people say "hm, I don't get paid vacation or sick days, so obviously the fair thing to do is to make everyone a casual worker".
It will take much deeper thinking to come up with the right incentives for companies to understand the value of taking care of all their workers on an equal footing."
Yeah, I'll say. The kind of deeper thinking that one does in the shadow of the guillotine, probably, if we're lucky enough to get that far.
posted by Frowner at 10:26 AM on August 31, 2015 [98 favorites]
Having trouble drilling through this. It seemed like the argument was, part time employees are exploited so lets embrace exploitive gig economics instead of iterating on the part time employee definition to bring that body of workers fully into the safety net.
His argument is that the gig economy is different because the information is exposed to workers as well as employers. Seriously.
And people wonder why I support forcing liberal arts courses on engineering majors...
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:28 AM on August 31, 2015 [15 favorites]
His argument is that the gig economy is different because the information is exposed to workers as well as employers. Seriously.
And people wonder why I support forcing liberal arts courses on engineering majors...
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:28 AM on August 31, 2015 [15 favorites]
It will take much deeper thinking to come up with the right incentives for companies to understand the value of taking care of all their workers on an equal footing.
I believe that "much deeper thinking" is called regulation and laws because otherwise, as Frowner says so well, employers are going to do what they can to avoid taking care of anyone but the employers.
posted by kokaku at 10:33 AM on August 31, 2015 [11 favorites]
I believe that "much deeper thinking" is called regulation and laws because otherwise, as Frowner says so well, employers are going to do what they can to avoid taking care of anyone but the employers.
posted by kokaku at 10:33 AM on August 31, 2015 [11 favorites]
His argument is that the gig economy is different because the information is exposed to workers as well as employers. Seriously.
Exploitive part-time job: you're getting screwed.
Gig economy with worker information: go screw yourself.
posted by zippy at 10:34 AM on August 31, 2015 [25 favorites]
Exploitive part-time job: you're getting screwed.
Gig economy with worker information: go screw yourself.
posted by zippy at 10:34 AM on August 31, 2015 [25 favorites]
God, though, I wish I could live in the fantasy world where imperfect information is the chief problem with liberal market allocation. Where we could just pretend that contracts negotiated between the powerful and the weak can be fair. Such a wonderful fantasy world...
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 10:35 AM on August 31, 2015 [27 favorites]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 10:35 AM on August 31, 2015 [27 favorites]
Hm. There was a really great near-future short story set in England which is precisely on this topic, but which I can't find. It was part of a short web anthology about London, I think. "Zero-hours workers" was a phrase involved, but I don't think it was the title...
Shame, it's perfect for this thread.
posted by CrystalDave at 10:38 AM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Shame, it's perfect for this thread.
posted by CrystalDave at 10:38 AM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Also, honestly, temp work is very different for high-paid people in in-demand occupations who are under about 45. It might be great to be able say "hey, I only really need to make about $65,000 this year, so I'll just work for five months and spend the rest in Bali - my needs are modest!" but that's not how most temp workers live.
A lot of these tech/creative types who think casual work is so awesome are under 45, too, so they're not getting hit with age discrimination. I know some people at the top of their game but in their late fifties, and they're only working some months out of the year because it's hard to get work when you're older, especially in fancy jobs. Awesome contract work when you're 35 dries up a bit as you age.
posted by Frowner at 10:40 AM on August 31, 2015 [27 favorites]
A lot of these tech/creative types who think casual work is so awesome are under 45, too, so they're not getting hit with age discrimination. I know some people at the top of their game but in their late fifties, and they're only working some months out of the year because it's hard to get work when you're older, especially in fancy jobs. Awesome contract work when you're 35 dries up a bit as you age.
posted by Frowner at 10:40 AM on August 31, 2015 [27 favorites]
Was it this one with the barista badges?
posted by Slackermagee at 10:41 AM on August 31, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Slackermagee at 10:41 AM on August 31, 2015 [9 favorites]
Robert Reich’s proposal might be the easiest to implement: “We should aim instead for simplicity: Whatever party — contractor, client, customer, agent, or intermediary — pays more than half of someone’s income, or provides more than half their working hours, should be responsible for all the labor protections and insurance an employee is entitled to.”
Three jobs, three employers, who pays half? You make a rule (and it's probably written by those who don't want it but then allow it to get written once) "they" figure out a way around it.
Some sci fi book I read within the last five years but written who knows when really trashed the idea of "moar regulashun" ... people working in a black market economy and working "fractional" jobs, a few hours a day, for someone else who had subcontracted their own job out to them ... it was really weird; trashing overly-regulated work rules seemed to be the point as an aside but I'm not very good at teasing out deeper implications or understated criticism.
posted by tilde at 10:45 AM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Three jobs, three employers, who pays half? You make a rule (and it's probably written by those who don't want it but then allow it to get written once) "they" figure out a way around it.
Some sci fi book I read within the last five years but written who knows when really trashed the idea of "moar regulashun" ... people working in a black market economy and working "fractional" jobs, a few hours a day, for someone else who had subcontracted their own job out to them ... it was really weird; trashing overly-regulated work rules seemed to be the point as an aside but I'm not very good at teasing out deeper implications or understated criticism.
posted by tilde at 10:45 AM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Ah, "clopens." I had to do that shit a few times when I was a barista and it always always sucked. My employer did not make a habit of it; it mostly occurred when younger co-workers decided to take an impromptu vacation or had something like their band play a gig that night so they would be too tired or hungover to open.
I have a fair-to-middling job at a financial advisory office currently. They have offered me full time but I have noticed that their idea of full time keeps me just a hair under thirty hours a week.
posted by Kitteh at 10:49 AM on August 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
I have a fair-to-middling job at a financial advisory office currently. They have offered me full time but I have noticed that their idea of full time keeps me just a hair under thirty hours a week.
posted by Kitteh at 10:49 AM on August 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
All benefits should be prorated, with 40hrs=100%
Work 4 hours? You get 10% of the benefits.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:50 AM on August 31, 2015 [16 favorites]
Work 4 hours? You get 10% of the benefits.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:50 AM on August 31, 2015 [16 favorites]
I believe that "much deeper thinking" is called regulation
Weird article seems to think that some kind of 'noblesse oblige' recast as 'thinking' is going to sort this out. In fact it's only when labour organises that things change, against the background of a labour force that has gradually become literally so sick physically and mentally that it can no longer perform the tasks needed to keep capital flowing through it.
posted by colie at 10:58 AM on August 31, 2015 [8 favorites]
Weird article seems to think that some kind of 'noblesse oblige' recast as 'thinking' is going to sort this out. In fact it's only when labour organises that things change, against the background of a labour force that has gradually become literally so sick physically and mentally that it can no longer perform the tasks needed to keep capital flowing through it.
posted by colie at 10:58 AM on August 31, 2015 [8 favorites]
Maybe we could develop an app that records gig worker satisfaction. Every time frustration gets above a certain point, an executive from that particular startup will be notified to report to one of our handy service points where they can cleanly and easily guillotine themselves. We will call it SansCulottr or Tricoteusr.
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:12 AM on August 31, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:12 AM on August 31, 2015 [16 favorites]
What happens if they refuse to show up within the appropriate time window you ask? That's when we send the Comic Sans-culottes after them.
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:14 AM on August 31, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:14 AM on August 31, 2015 [6 favorites]
While I found this article a fairly interesting read, but I can't help but think that the whole "issue" here is caused by the American system of employee benefits. It's a weird sort of cognitive blindness that the author can write 5000 nuanced words on the challenges of partial employment without even mentioning that -- oh, by the way -- universal healthcare (*) makes the whole issue disappear.
(*) Plus a few other basic human benefits for the pedantic.
posted by srt19170 at 11:24 AM on August 31, 2015 [30 favorites]
(*) Plus a few other basic human benefits for the pedantic.
posted by srt19170 at 11:24 AM on August 31, 2015 [30 favorites]
corporate profit machine=a company that is in business to make money
Joe Hill said it: Don't mourn for me boys, organize
posted by Postroad at 11:32 AM on August 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
Joe Hill said it: Don't mourn for me boys, organize
posted by Postroad at 11:32 AM on August 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
In a non-universal healthcare country, this whole "gig" economy collapses upon itself. Though I currently pay (quite a bit) for my own health insurance (because my employer's program doesn't cover two of the drugs I need to stay alive), I don't feel free to just hop about as a contractor, because that payment is overwhelming to me. If my income goes down enough to get onto the lower-paying tier, then I'm not making a living. It's really just more exploitation, to say you have "freedom" in work, when that "freedom" largely consists of biting your nails waiting for the next paid gig.
posted by xingcat at 11:32 AM on August 31, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by xingcat at 11:32 AM on August 31, 2015 [6 favorites]
73% say they would rather have “a job where you choose your own schedule and be your own boss” than “a steady 9-to-5 job with some benefits and a set salary.”)
Sure, nobody cares about benefits... right up until you need them, then it's too late. Sick? Too bad you worked for no health care. Old? Too bad you didn't earn retirement.
Neither model (the "employee" or "contractor" examples used here) are really satisfactory. We really need a nationally mandated baseline set of benefits, and it needs to be made portable. If we are truly moving to an at-will employment future of endless part-timers, we need to have the benefits of employment separated from the employer. You know, just like we already do with retirement benefits. Pay it into a pool, withdraw at need. Employers get happier employees. Workers don't need to worry that a job change will wipe out their sick time or vacation hours.
posted by caution live frogs at 11:36 AM on August 31, 2015 [12 favorites]
Sure, nobody cares about benefits... right up until you need them, then it's too late. Sick? Too bad you worked for no health care. Old? Too bad you didn't earn retirement.
Neither model (the "employee" or "contractor" examples used here) are really satisfactory. We really need a nationally mandated baseline set of benefits, and it needs to be made portable. If we are truly moving to an at-will employment future of endless part-timers, we need to have the benefits of employment separated from the employer. You know, just like we already do with retirement benefits. Pay it into a pool, withdraw at need. Employers get happier employees. Workers don't need to worry that a job change will wipe out their sick time or vacation hours.
posted by caution live frogs at 11:36 AM on August 31, 2015 [12 favorites]
We will call it SansCulottr or Tricoteusr.
expropriate the expropriatrs!
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:46 AM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
expropriate the expropriatrs!
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:46 AM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Which of these scenarios sounds better to you?Is there a scenario where I don't read a crappy article built on the premise that we just need to lie down and accept the lesser of two crappy evils instead of standing up and saying "both of these options are crap, and we need a non-crap option on the table or this whole thing will collapse in a single generation"?
Our workers are employees. We used to hire them for eight hour shifts. But we are now much smarter [...]
or
Our workers are independent contractors. We provide them tools to understand when and where there is demand for their services, and when there aren’t enough of them [...]
Seriously, this entire article is built on the idea that (possibly) marginally less shitty is the obvious choice over super shitty. How about an article that says that we need to provide non-shitty options to workers? This whole "hey, I'm only breaking one leg, you should be grateful" justification for the "sharing economy" is really starting to grate my cheese.
posted by Shepherd at 11:46 AM on August 31, 2015 [25 favorites]
As someone who barely scrapes by on a combination of both part-time, low-wage retail work and benefit-less contract work, this article offers nothing.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 11:46 AM on August 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 11:46 AM on August 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
I love the Fleet Foxes reference here, blue_beetle
posted by glaucon at 11:50 AM on August 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by glaucon at 11:50 AM on August 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's a weird sort of cognitive blindness that the author can write 5000 nuanced words on the challenges of partial employment without even mentioning that -- oh, by the way -- universal healthcare (*) makes the whole issue disappear.
Actually, that did get mentioned:
posted by Rat Spatula at 11:55 AM on August 31, 2015
Actually, that did get mentioned:
However, none of these proposals have solved the deeper dynamics that drive the 29 hour loophole. It isn’t the basic payroll taxes that drive companies to want to have two classes of workers. It is healthcare to start with (a single payer system would solve that problem, as well as many others) [...]But the fact that it gets mentioned only emphasizes the blindness, so far as I'm concerned.
posted by Rat Spatula at 11:55 AM on August 31, 2015
The gig economy is stupid for employers, too. A business running on temp labor is forever sticking temporary band-aid on all of their problems, not developing solutions. They don't develope institutional knowledge or experience. All of the skill their workers develope goes away with them. Nobody does anything with any mind to the future. You can run that way on a day-to-day basis, but in the long term? Things will never become smooth or efficient.
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:00 PM on August 31, 2015 [21 favorites]
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:00 PM on August 31, 2015 [21 favorites]
Shit like the gig economy wouldn't be taken so seriously were it not for that annoyingly strong stream of every-man-for-himself libertarianism that flows through the tech world, which seems to be so tightly entwined with some kind of "code warrior building a brave, shining future" mass-delusion.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:23 PM on August 31, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by Thorzdad at 12:23 PM on August 31, 2015 [13 favorites]
Or maybe benefits could kick in at 10 hours, or be prorated as suggested above. Or maybe we all get benefits, the hell with how many hours we're employed. You know, like in other advanced economies where people aren't held hostage to a job and the economy still works just fine. Because maybe that way employers can learn that having happy employees is actually good for business.
And, wait, payroll and social security taxes? Wouldn't it be more efficient to just tax these off of capital gains, since that's where the income seems to actually be higher?
I once met a Norwegian couple when I was on vacation. The supposed downside of their economic system? All they could come up with when I asked was having to pay $8 for a gallon of milk.
WORTH IT.
posted by Strudel at 12:35 PM on August 31, 2015 [11 favorites]
And, wait, payroll and social security taxes? Wouldn't it be more efficient to just tax these off of capital gains, since that's where the income seems to actually be higher?
I once met a Norwegian couple when I was on vacation. The supposed downside of their economic system? All they could come up with when I asked was having to pay $8 for a gallon of milk.
WORTH IT.
posted by Strudel at 12:35 PM on August 31, 2015 [11 favorites]
My benefits are delivered by my union. Doesn't matter which company I am working for benefits are the same and if I'm working full-time (or like now 200+ hours a month) I actually bank benefit credit for periods when I am not working.
Applying this at the national level like social security would be brilliant.
posted by Mitheral at 12:36 PM on August 31, 2015 [10 favorites]
Applying this at the national level like social security would be brilliant.
posted by Mitheral at 12:36 PM on August 31, 2015 [10 favorites]
In a non-universal healthcare country,
...we build a healthier workforce by allowing the less healthy to die and get out of the way. Any "entrepreneur" who denies that is what they're working toward is simply lying.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:38 PM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
...we build a healthier workforce by allowing the less healthy to die and get out of the way. Any "entrepreneur" who denies that is what they're working toward is simply lying.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:38 PM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
God, though, I wish I could live in the fantasy world where imperfect information is the chief problem with liberal market allocation. Where we could just pretend that contracts negotiated between the powerful and the weak can be fair. Such a wonderful fantasy world...
This is why I've never understood why more of my fellow libertarians aren't in favor of unions. IMO it is a great solution to the power imbalance you refer to.
posted by Jacqueline at 12:45 PM on August 31, 2015 [9 favorites]
This is why I've never understood why more of my fellow libertarians aren't in favor of unions. IMO it is a great solution to the power imbalance you refer to.
posted by Jacqueline at 12:45 PM on August 31, 2015 [9 favorites]
It's really adorable that people think that production methods that keep workers happy can outcompete production methods that more thoroughly exploit workers. The nasty secret behind capitalism is that exploitation works — deeply exploitative processes are more efficient at winning profits for the ownership class than non-exploitative or less-exploitative processes are. This is why the United States had to fight a war to end slavery; slave labor is more efficient than wage labor, and so, all else being equal, the market will prefer it.
In the long run non-exploitative practices cannot compete in the market with exploitative practices, not unless people band together to suppress exploitation through non-market means.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:48 PM on August 31, 2015 [36 favorites]
In the long run non-exploitative practices cannot compete in the market with exploitative practices, not unless people band together to suppress exploitation through non-market means.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:48 PM on August 31, 2015 [36 favorites]
Jacqueline: I think, perhaps, the reason why libertarians tend to oppose unions is that typically libertarians present certain types of institutional organization as being natural parts of the market and others as being unnatural distortions on the market. Effective union contracts (which is to say, ones that give unions say over who can and cannot hold a given job and the rates they are allowed to accept for it) are typically understood as an unnatural distortion on the right to contract rather than a part of the market itself. The same holds for, for example, workplace safety regulations and minimum wage laws — rather than being understood as effective tools for winning a more favorable negotiation environment for workers, they are seen as unnatural constraints on the freedom to contract.
Given that I'm a big old communist, I must note that it is somewhat suspicious that the negotiation tools used by the ownership class are the ones that are typically understood as natural parts of the market, while the negotiation tools used by the non-ownership class are the ones that are typically understood as unnatural distortions. This may, possibly, be a result of the ideological alignment of most libertarians with the ownership class and against workers, rather than the result of any sort of subtle or insightful analysis.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:58 PM on August 31, 2015 [37 favorites]
Given that I'm a big old communist, I must note that it is somewhat suspicious that the negotiation tools used by the ownership class are the ones that are typically understood as natural parts of the market, while the negotiation tools used by the non-ownership class are the ones that are typically understood as unnatural distortions. This may, possibly, be a result of the ideological alignment of most libertarians with the ownership class and against workers, rather than the result of any sort of subtle or insightful analysis.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:58 PM on August 31, 2015 [37 favorites]
The gig economy is stupid for employers, too. A business running on temp labor is forever sticking temporary band-aid on all of their problems, not developing solutions. They don't develop institutional knowledge or experience. All of the skill their workers develop goes away with them. Nobody does anything with any mind to the future. You can run that way on a day-to-day basis, but in the long term? Things will never become smooth or efficient.
If we were actually to detach benefits from employment and enforce more protections for all workers - good luck with that, I know - it seems like we would in time find out how much there actually is to the model beyond working around the rules.
posted by atoxyl at 1:00 PM on August 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
If we were actually to detach benefits from employment and enforce more protections for all workers - good luck with that, I know - it seems like we would in time find out how much there actually is to the model beyond working around the rules.
posted by atoxyl at 1:00 PM on August 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
We will call it SansCulottr or Tricoteusr.
Tumbrl.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:32 PM on August 31, 2015 [10 favorites]
Tumbrl.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:32 PM on August 31, 2015 [10 favorites]
I've never understood why more of my fellow libertarians aren't in favor of unions. IMO it is a great solution to the power imbalance you refer to.
The libertarians I know see power imbalances as a natural, organic, part of a free market. Winners and losers, as it were.
posted by Thorzdad at 1:52 PM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
The libertarians I know see power imbalances as a natural, organic, part of a free market. Winners and losers, as it were.
posted by Thorzdad at 1:52 PM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
73% say they would rather have “a job where you choose your own schedule and be your own boss” than “a steady 9-to-5 job with some benefits and a set salary.”
Rule Zero of polling is that you can find any answers you want to have if you word the questions right. Ask the same people "would you like a job with unpredictable hours, no steady income, and where you will go bankrupt when you get sick?" and tell me if 73% say yes.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 1:54 PM on August 31, 2015 [24 favorites]
Rule Zero of polling is that you can find any answers you want to have if you word the questions right. Ask the same people "would you like a job with unpredictable hours, no steady income, and where you will go bankrupt when you get sick?" and tell me if 73% say yes.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 1:54 PM on August 31, 2015 [24 favorites]
hey, remember 9 to 5 jobs? Sigh. Our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents fought so hard for the 8 hour work day, and we let it slip out of our hands so easily...
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:14 PM on August 31, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:14 PM on August 31, 2015 [9 favorites]
LOL. Tim O'Reilly. Of course. Silicon Valley Suckers.
posted by symbioid at 2:56 PM on August 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by symbioid at 2:56 PM on August 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
hey, remember 9 to 5 jobs? Sigh. Our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents fought so hard for the 8 hour work day, and we let it slip out of our hands so easily...
As I have said before on the blue, the most astonishing thing to imagine about the recent past is that fifty years ago my grandfather bought a house and supported a wife and five children on a single blue-collar salary.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 2:57 PM on August 31, 2015 [23 favorites]
As I have said before on the blue, the most astonishing thing to imagine about the recent past is that fifty years ago my grandfather bought a house and supported a wife and five children on a single blue-collar salary.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 2:57 PM on August 31, 2015 [23 favorites]
This Faustian pact has been the undoing of many great artists, many more journeymen and more than a few of my good friends. Add to this volatile mixture the powerful accelerant of emerging digital technology and all hell breaks loose. What I have witnessed happening in the last twenty years is the aesthetic equivalent of the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century. The wholesale industrialization and mechanistation of the creative process. Our ad agencies, design groups, film and music studios have gone from being cottage industries and guilds of craftsmen and women, essentially unchanged from the middle-ages, to dark sattanic mills of mass production. Ideas themselves have become just another disposable commodity to be supplied to order by the lowest bidder. As soon as they figure out a way of outsourcing thinking to China they won’t think twice. Believe me. Source
Source/source
posted by infini at 4:07 PM on August 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
Source/source
posted by infini at 4:07 PM on August 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
Frrom the article:
As Harvard Business School lecturer and former CEO of Stop & Shop José Alvarez wrote, “Using years of research and analysis, Zeynep Ton has proven what great leaders know instinctively — an engaged, well-paid workforce that is treated with dignity and respect creates outsized returns for investors."
This idea has absolutely no real relation to the capitalist entities I have personally experienced.
posted by bukvich at 4:08 PM on August 31, 2015 [6 favorites]
As Harvard Business School lecturer and former CEO of Stop & Shop José Alvarez wrote, “Using years of research and analysis, Zeynep Ton has proven what great leaders know instinctively — an engaged, well-paid workforce that is treated with dignity and respect creates outsized returns for investors."
This idea has absolutely no real relation to the capitalist entities I have personally experienced.
posted by bukvich at 4:08 PM on August 31, 2015 [6 favorites]
This idea has absolutely no real relation to the capitalist entities I have personally experienced.
Pro-capitalist journalism tends to be about as true as the stuff you could read in Pravda back in the day.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:19 PM on August 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
Pro-capitalist journalism tends to be about as true as the stuff you could read in Pravda back in the day.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:19 PM on August 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
The whole dodging paying health benefits thing seems like a massive incentive for employers to screw people, but I live in a country with a relatively great healthcare system (Australia) and have had nothing but casual, temp, or part time jobs for 19 years. Take heart Americans, we're all being exploited in our own special snowflake ways.
posted by threecheesetrees at 4:25 PM on August 31, 2015
posted by threecheesetrees at 4:25 PM on August 31, 2015
The gig economy is stupid for employers, too. A business running on temp labor is forever sticking temporary band-aid on all of their problems, not developing solutions...Things will never become smooth or efficient.
Smart companies can be very efficient with permatemps -- they design a machine that has humans in certain positions where computers, rather than humans, hold the experience and tell people what to do. This is Amazon's model for warehouse workers, and Amazon can get goods to my door the same day I order them.
I'm not saying it's moral or good for society, but it is efficient.
posted by zippy at 4:57 PM on August 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
Smart companies can be very efficient with permatemps -- they design a machine that has humans in certain positions where computers, rather than humans, hold the experience and tell people what to do. This is Amazon's model for warehouse workers, and Amazon can get goods to my door the same day I order them.
I'm not saying it's moral or good for society, but it is efficient.
posted by zippy at 4:57 PM on August 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
"Effective union contracts (which is to say, ones that give unions say over who can and cannot hold a given job and the rates they are allowed to accept for it) are typically understood as an unnatural distortion on the right to contract rather than a part of the market itself. "
More unnatural than corporations with their limited liability and legal personhood???
If capital can organize itself and hire lawyers to negotiate on its behalf then of course labor should also be able to organize itself and hire lawyers to negotiate on its behalf.
posted by Jacqueline at 5:08 PM on August 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
More unnatural than corporations with their limited liability and legal personhood???
If capital can organize itself and hire lawyers to negotiate on its behalf then of course labor should also be able to organize itself and hire lawyers to negotiate on its behalf.
posted by Jacqueline at 5:08 PM on August 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
More unnatural than corporations with their limited liability and legal personhood???
I know, right? Things like this are why I suspect that most libertarians actually do understand what tends to happen when liberal/libertarian "free" markets are left to their own devices — wealth gets concentrated in a few hands and then passed down from generation to generation — but are comfortable with their position in the hierarchy that this process establishes.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:18 PM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
I know, right? Things like this are why I suspect that most libertarians actually do understand what tends to happen when liberal/libertarian "free" markets are left to their own devices — wealth gets concentrated in a few hands and then passed down from generation to generation — but are comfortable with their position in the hierarchy that this process establishes.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:18 PM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
As independent contractors (small businesses), they are allowed to deduct 57.5 cents per mile driven in their own vehicle. Intuit even provides an app, integrated with the Uber app, to help a driver track personal miles driven versus miles driven on the job. For a driver putting on hundreds of miles per week, this may shelter a large part of his or her income from taxes.
Tax shelter! That isn't a tax shelter. It is money you have to spend out of your own paycheck for expenses to buy and operate your car for Uber's benefit. Any maroon that has so little grasp of basic business accounting has no place giving advice to those lucky "independent" contractors.
posted by JackFlash at 5:23 PM on August 31, 2015 [14 favorites]
Tax shelter! That isn't a tax shelter. It is money you have to spend out of your own paycheck for expenses to buy and operate your car for Uber's benefit. Any maroon that has so little grasp of basic business accounting has no place giving advice to those lucky "independent" contractors.
posted by JackFlash at 5:23 PM on August 31, 2015 [14 favorites]
This is using tax shelter in the sense of "any legal strategy you employ to reduce the amount of income taxes you owe" and not "tax dodge."
posted by zippy at 5:30 PM on August 31, 2015
posted by zippy at 5:30 PM on August 31, 2015
No, this is using tax shelter in a sense that makes no sense. Money out of your own pocket is not a tax shelter no matter how you look at it.
posted by JackFlash at 6:00 PM on August 31, 2015
posted by JackFlash at 6:00 PM on August 31, 2015
The potential for a "shelter" here (and I dislike the use of this word in this case as well) is that the IRS allows you to choose between deducting actual expenses and mileage. So you get to run the numbers both ways and choose the better of the two.
If your car has already depreciated and is reliable and gets deceit mpg (e.g. it's a 4+ year old Honda Civic) your depreciation + operating expenses per mile may be well below the IRS's mileage rate. In this case, you can "shelter" some of your income.
(I think the crime here is applying "shelter" to something that is standard and allowed and small change, as opposed to shady and creative and corporate/millionaire level.)
posted by zippy at 6:55 PM on August 31, 2015
If your car has already depreciated and is reliable and gets deceit mpg (e.g. it's a 4+ year old Honda Civic) your depreciation + operating expenses per mile may be well below the IRS's mileage rate. In this case, you can "shelter" some of your income.
(I think the crime here is applying "shelter" to something that is standard and allowed and small change, as opposed to shady and creative and corporate/millionaire level.)
posted by zippy at 6:55 PM on August 31, 2015
The IRS mileage rate is very definitely more than the cost of operating a modern, compact car. But the IRS very clearly allows you to deduct the higher of the two (either actual expenses or the mileage rate). It's arguably a plum subsidy for car owners—I've heard some pretty compelling arguments against the "higher of the two" rule on the basis of it penalizing alternative forms of transportation and/or making cars artificially cheap for businesses to operate—but the surplus deduction between what a car actually costs to operate and the IRS mileage rate could easily cover a big chunk of an Uber driver's income.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:32 PM on August 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:32 PM on August 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Mileage is a business expense, just like buying copy paper is a business expense.
Business expenses are not tax shelters. Tax shelters make a portion of the money you are keeping exempt from being taxed, sometimes through IRA contributions or less legal things like offshore partnerships.
Besides legit retirement contributions, people working gigs in the freelance economy get no "tax shelters." Most of them operate as sole proprietors and actually pay double in to Social Security as 1099 employees (they pay the employee portion and employer portion).
posted by littlewater at 9:36 PM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Business expenses are not tax shelters. Tax shelters make a portion of the money you are keeping exempt from being taxed, sometimes through IRA contributions or less legal things like offshore partnerships.
Besides legit retirement contributions, people working gigs in the freelance economy get no "tax shelters." Most of them operate as sole proprietors and actually pay double in to Social Security as 1099 employees (they pay the employee portion and employer portion).
posted by littlewater at 9:36 PM on August 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
I have never understood why the government doesn't have different payroll/business taxes based on how the employer treats their employees. Lots of part-time, no-benefits, high-turnover workers like Wal-Mart? Well the company pays higher taxes to off-set the increased costs of their employees (which are, of course, downloaded to the local government that has to provide free healthcare/food stamps to the part time workers). Have a majority of full-time workers with full benefits? Then the business pays less taxes as the employees are able to contribute more to their community (soccer coaches, purchasing power, stability, and paying personal taxes) and lower overall government expenditures.
And it needs to be a significant difference. If a company can't make a profit while paying higher taxes but less in employee wages instead of higher wages and less taxes then they don't have a sustainable business plan. Employees shouldn't be expected to accept being exploited in order to have the company be successful and governments (and taxpayers) shouldn't be subsidising these poorly planned businesses in order to guarantee the owners'/shareholders' profits.
posted by saucysault at 9:40 PM on August 31, 2015 [7 favorites]
And it needs to be a significant difference. If a company can't make a profit while paying higher taxes but less in employee wages instead of higher wages and less taxes then they don't have a sustainable business plan. Employees shouldn't be expected to accept being exploited in order to have the company be successful and governments (and taxpayers) shouldn't be subsidising these poorly planned businesses in order to guarantee the owners'/shareholders' profits.
posted by saucysault at 9:40 PM on August 31, 2015 [7 favorites]
A big part of the problem seems to be that the Affordable Care Act allows businesses to not pay health care if you work under 30 hours. I believe the purpose was to make sure that even people who work "only" 30 hours a week get health care.
So now we get wider availability of relatively inexpensive health care, but many people have to pay the price of only getting to work 29 hours a week.
Can Obamacare be changed in this regard? Or is it considered to be a greater benefit that people who do get 30 hours get health care? Because maybe there are still a lot more people who work over 30 hours than under, and now they have health care they couldn't afford before.
posted by serena15221 at 10:12 PM on August 31, 2015
So now we get wider availability of relatively inexpensive health care, but many people have to pay the price of only getting to work 29 hours a week.
Can Obamacare be changed in this regard? Or is it considered to be a greater benefit that people who do get 30 hours get health care? Because maybe there are still a lot more people who work over 30 hours than under, and now they have health care they couldn't afford before.
posted by serena15221 at 10:12 PM on August 31, 2015
Of the studies done so far concerning reduction of hours due to Obamacare, the results have shown that there has been very little shifting of hours to below the 30-hour threshold, contrary to Republican predictions. The numbers are too small to measure with any statistical significance.
On the other hand, assuming there exists some small number of people working fewer hours, they are probably better off than they were before. If they aren't eligible for employer insurance, then they likely are eligible for thousands of dollars of subsidized health insurance from Obamacare. Fewer hours of work and thousands of dollars of health insurance is might not be a bad deal.
posted by JackFlash at 10:40 PM on August 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
On the other hand, assuming there exists some small number of people working fewer hours, they are probably better off than they were before. If they aren't eligible for employer insurance, then they likely are eligible for thousands of dollars of subsidized health insurance from Obamacare. Fewer hours of work and thousands of dollars of health insurance is might not be a bad deal.
posted by JackFlash at 10:40 PM on August 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Eliminate the part-time/full-time distinction altogether, and these abuses will stop.
Every employer who hires a worker pays into a minimal benefits package, or their own package that exceeds minimum standards. Contractors already tend to incorporate themselves to limit liability, so their customers wouldn't be considered employers.
If Walmart wants you to come in for 20 hours this week, they owe the federal package 50% of a 40-hour benefit package. If you then pick up 15 hours cleaning for Redi-Maids, and 5 hours at some other job, you have full benefits.
Along with this, prevent employers from keeping their part-time workers busy 52 weeks a year (Walmart can't force you to skip vacation to fulfill their 20-hour need), and allow paid vacation from that fund at the average rate earned for the year.
Or, you know, pay a living wage. But that's not gonna happen, either.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:04 AM on September 1, 2015
Every employer who hires a worker pays into a minimal benefits package, or their own package that exceeds minimum standards. Contractors already tend to incorporate themselves to limit liability, so their customers wouldn't be considered employers.
If Walmart wants you to come in for 20 hours this week, they owe the federal package 50% of a 40-hour benefit package. If you then pick up 15 hours cleaning for Redi-Maids, and 5 hours at some other job, you have full benefits.
Along with this, prevent employers from keeping their part-time workers busy 52 weeks a year (Walmart can't force you to skip vacation to fulfill their 20-hour need), and allow paid vacation from that fund at the average rate earned for the year.
Or, you know, pay a living wage. But that's not gonna happen, either.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:04 AM on September 1, 2015
Or entirely decouple healthcare, a basic human right, from employment.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:49 AM on September 1, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:49 AM on September 1, 2015 [5 favorites]
« Older There is pow'r in an Agile methodology | Older than the Rolling Stones: lithophones of the... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Reading the thing now.
posted by migurski at 10:17 AM on August 31, 2015 [1 favorite]