Does a growing GIG ECONOMY spell the end of Employee Benefits

Sorry, but it doesn't follow. There is absolutely no connection made from being a private contractor to publicly subsidized health care. You could replace medicare with cotton candy, and it makes just as much "sense".

 

If you are a contracted employee you are no longer offered fringe benefits such as company health plans so you are at the markets mercy buying your own individual health plan or going without any insurance.

 

Very old concept with a new fangled name Someone discovered a new name for something millions have been doing for decades lol

 

As a private contractor you have every right to sell your service to toe highest bidder, or bidders if you do choose purchase what ever level health insurance you want that covers your needs of the moment and change it when ever you like. Invest your money in whatever retirement account you like and campaign against candidates the want to gut the value of your services by inviting in ever more H1b's.

 

Same here! I bid a job, do the job get paid for the job.. Been doing that for almost twenty years.. I suspect I'm considered "Trendy" now ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

Well you have to admit GIG sound far more ominous then the old Freelance term

 

Clearly

 

That proposition is just plain nonsense.

Rich people giving away some of their wealth does NOT solve wealth OR income inequality.

 

related threads:

it's not just about wages, it's about hours & job security too

1 out of 3 Americans forced into the gig economy

 

Good question. It depends on what you consider a revolution. Russia and France were violent coups that involved a murderous overthrow of an established government. Could that happen here? I don't give it a high probability.

As the well respected historian, Jon Meacham said, 'America is a 38% - 38% country and alway has been.' Our Constitution provides a path to revolution via the ballot box. If 2018 and some recent mid-term elections are any indication, then there will be a revolution in November 2020. 2020 may represent the overthrow of a political party rather than the overthrow of a government, per se.

 

This is not a good representation of the medical benefits debate.

A number of our Democratic candidates are interested in movin healthcare AWAY from employers.

There are several reasons for that. Requiring large numbers of corporations to have a health care department is ridiculous - it's costly to the company even if the management of the program gets contracted out, as it requires program design, employee communications and record keeping, watching competing employers, etc.

Also, it's miserable on employees who periodically face job transitions, the number of employees is not something that should affect the employee so dramaticly, it divides employees into haves and have nots on an incredibly important basis, usually leaving low income workers at a serious disadvantage.

Anyway, we need to progress to something far better than what we have - better both for employers and for employees.

EVERY other first world country does that, AND pays less for healthcare.

So, it is clearly possible - plus US corporations have to pay for healthcare while competing with foreign corporations that don't.

 

France is having violent protests right now at the prospect of raising the pension age and related financial matters.

 

We have far too many ex senators and congress persons who are now lobbyists for health insurers and hospitals and drug companies pushing for even higher health costs.

 

France has a lot of problems ATM... High unemployment, huge deficits and sluggish economic growth 1.6%. Much like we had during the Obama years.. Only difference is we created funny money and huge debt to float the holey boat..

 

We have had our largest deficits under Dirty Donald.

 

Reread your post a couple of times, then think about what you actually just put out there, willingly.

 

True. There is no possiility of considering unions of teachers as being powerful.

If they had power they wouldn't be paid less than any other profession requiring an advanced degree.

And, they would have more input into their own profession - the profession where they are the experts, but are subject to the ever changing waves of political opinion of those with no experience in pedagogy.

 

Guess who champions the gig economy more than any other demographic? Yep, the Progressive Left. The same people who claim they're 'for the worker' and 'for unions', etc.

 

Then they shouldn't be voting.

 

Precisely. As always, one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing.

 

The direction in CA doesn't support your claim.

 

Wrong the champions of the GIG economy are the right wing.

 

1. Teaching doesn't require an advanced degree.

2. US median wage is $59k

3. US teacher median wage is $60k

Your entire post was unsupportable nonsense.

 

In my career, the people we brought in from outside the US allowed us to hire more people here.

Obviously, hiring from outside the US is more expensive, so capable people in the US had a significant built I advantage.

The thing is, in high tech you can't really sart a project without having someone capable of both the technology and the leadership. And, it's not easy to find that combination.

 

You need an advanced degree to be a teacher here and in most other places where people care about education.

And, having a median wage not an encouragement for people entering education. Teachers have capabilities to do all sorts of work in high tech and other places which include compensation and job description that are far superior to that of a high school teacher.