Comment Except that they're right and you're not. (Score 1) 391
You want automation? Fine - have a plan for integrating the displaced in some snark-free way. Otherwise, enjoy being on the business end of a malfunctioning ED-209.
Comment ...in the long term, we're all dead. (Score 1) 391
What you are saying is that you're willing to sweep the displaced under the rug and forget that they exist - since there's something new around the corner.
Comment Bullshit. (Score 1) 391
Manipulate the numbers the right way and you can get absurd conclusions like this article.
Comment The term is Destructive Destruction. (Score 1) 432
...where the "better" (FTE), is getting replaced by the "worse" (irregular labor such as Uber/1099's/agency).
Comment That's not the case. (Score 1) 432
If anything, it's Uber and the like responding with the call of "Individuals have too much stability, KILL THEM."
Comment For once, the modders are right. (Score 1) 432
Regarding your post - what is the net result of individuals being able to pick up a small [redacted] here and there? What is the social cost of that? Yeah, it can generate some spending money, but is the overall result to drive down wages of workers, while increasing wealth among business owners?
Correct.
Such arrangements discourage stability and destroy the option for those that thrive best on conventional, FTE arrangements.
Or does it lower costs for business, both in regulation and wages, leading to greater business innovation and business creation, and greater social welfare?
Incorrect.
The only innovation that it "creates" is by creating more "broken windows". The loss in stability is not a positive factor, as it transfers the advantage to the broker/agency/etc, not individuals in general.
No thank you, but the casualization of labor does not lead to anywhere good or sane.
Comment Yet an FTE job outdoes you every possible way. (Score 1) 432
The only way an FTE job loses is when someone has enough ability to deflect the negative consequences of turning down work. These people are few, rare, and have the luxury that nearly everyone else doesn't have.
An FTE job provides the necessary stability. Your arrangements do not.
Comment My reply, in plain American English. (Score 1) 432
The idea of promoting unstable work arrangements is one that needs to DIAF. Promoting it as "flexibility" with a Potemkin Village doesn't make it true - it only serves to show that the "on-demand" economy cannot stand on merit, but on deception.
Perhaps you might want to read up on your historical friend, the company town, and wonder why we don't want to head back to the vagaries of the 19th century.
Comment That's enforced happiness, not real happiness. (Score 1) 432
The only person that would be happy is a person that has the rare luxury of being able to turn down any form of work.
Uber drivers are not of that set, but of a set that would choose more stable arrangements if offered them.
Comment Except you're wrong. (Score 1) 432
You leave out the details of how someone gets there or that others do well with an established company.
Such lines of work do not show any net benefit - unless you have the luxury of being able to turn down any line of work.
Comment Citation Needed. (Score 1) 432
N/T
Robots Appear To Raise Productivity Without Causing Total Work Hours To Decline 391
Hallie Siegel writes: We often read about the economic impact of robots on employment, usually accompanied with the assertion that "robots steal jobs". But to date there has precious little economic analysis of the actual effects that robots are already having on employment and productivity. Georg Graetz (Professor of Economics at Uppsala University) and Guy Michaels (Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics) undertook a study (abstract) of how robots impacted productivity and employment between 1993 and 2007, and found that "industrial robots increase labor productivity, total factor productivity and wages." And while there is some evidence that they reduced the employment of low skilled workers, and, to a lesser extent, middle skilled workers, industrial robots had no significant effect on total hours worked.
This is important because it seems to contradict many of the pessimistic assertions that are presently being made about the impact of robots on jobs. What I am especially curious about is post-2007 data, however, because it's just in the past few years that we have seen a major shift in industrial robotics to incorporate collaborative robots, or co-robots. (Robots specifically designed to work alongside humans, as tools for augmenting human performance.) One might reasonably suspect that some of the negative impact of industrial robotics on low and middle skilled workers pre 2007 could be offset by the more recent and increasing use of co-bots, which are not designed to replace humans, but instead to make them more efficient.
This is important because it seems to contradict many of the pessimistic assertions that are presently being made about the impact of robots on jobs. What I am especially curious about is post-2007 data, however, because it's just in the past few years that we have seen a major shift in industrial robotics to incorporate collaborative robots, or co-robots. (Robots specifically designed to work alongside humans, as tools for augmenting human performance.) One might reasonably suspect that some of the negative impact of industrial robotics on low and middle skilled workers pre 2007 could be offset by the more recent and increasing use of co-bots, which are not designed to replace humans, but instead to make them more efficient.
Comment Re:Benefit Dodgers (Score 1) 273
No thank you, but you're asking to make the problem worse.
Default to FTE's, and make any lesser form (contract work, third party, and/or combinations) be strictly on no-duress consent.
Comment Contract work as practiced == benefits dodging (Score 1) 273
In more cases than not, contract work (fixed term) only exists to dodge benefits laws.
Comment No, benefits-dodgers need DIAF in favor of FTE (Score 1) 273
Instead of trying to cram-down "flexibility" from above to dodge benefits laws, why not make it compete with first-tier FTE work and benefits.
That is, an employer cannot make someone accept less than FTE as a condition of accepting work, nor be required to accept employment through a third party - for all skill levels.
