Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Challenges of Being in the New Contract Workforce

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 304 posts

Re: The Challenges of Being in the New Contract Workforce

#271

Post by pathseeker »

gambiting wrote: post #19
pathseeker wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's historically the way it has been but it's absurd in general. Would you argue the same thing about housing, food, and water (they should all be provided by the employer)? Really what we need is an expectation of being able to buy healthcare on our own with regular incomes.

No, the american approach is beyond absurd. Of course my employer should pay into(government ran) healthcare on my behalf. Of course they should pay into a pension plan. And yes, currently, if I stay beyond my mandated 7.5 hours, my employer has to provide food during that time. My employer also has to provide water during working hours. If my employer asks me to go somewhere on company business, they have to provide…

No employer pays for food outside of work. The vast majority of employers do not pay for housing. No employers are paying for your water supply at home (unless they are paying for housing).

You are confusing employers paying for things that are part of your job and paying for things to cover your entire life. It's ridiculous to tie the latter to your employer because then you have to fear for your life if you lose your job.

Re: The Challenges of Being in the New Contract Workforce

#272

Post by pathseeker »

rectang wrote: post #147
SamReidHughes wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to America's current health care regulations it's not zero sum at all.

If employer-based insurance goes away, it will be replaced with nothing. The effect will be to lower compensation -- a win for employers, and a loss for workers. That's the lesson of the Gig Economy, perhaps even the primary reason that the Gig Economy is so heavily sold: it is advantageous for employers.

>If employer-based insurance goes away, it will be replaced with nothing.

Citation needed.

Re: The Challenges of Being in the New Contract Workforce

#273

Post by pathseeker »

gambiting wrote: post #123
crazy1van wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I want to work more than 40 hours/week in exchange for more money. Should I be prohibited from doing that?

In certain industries, absolutely. If you're a professional driver you can't drive more than 8 hours a day in EU(9 hours once a week) even if you're perfectly willing to do so, in the interests of your safety and everyone around you. But outside of those select few industries, no.

That's entirely for safety and has nothing to do with limiting your total hours worked in a week. You could easily work for the trucking company at a desk during extra hours.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but there are approximately 7 days a week and 7*8 > 40.

Re: The Challenges of Being in the New Contract Workforce

#274

Post by prepend »

maccard wrote: post #98
prepend wrote: post #94

I worked in both ways and there are pros and cons. If you are a good negotiator then contracting is best. I prefer negotiating the best rate then minmaxing I’m buying my own “benefits” rather than having my employer pick for me. At the end of the day you pay either way in the sense that high benefits affect salary. I’d rather get the straight hourly or daily rate and then build on costs for vacation, pension, insuran…

> I prefer negotiating the best rate then minmaxing I’m buying my own “benefits” rather than having my employer pick for me. This isn't always true though. For example, health insurance. My employers package is far far better than anything I could get as an individual, and costs 1/5 f the closest comparable package that I could buy on my own.

Oh definitely. When I ran my 1099 business it was impossible to get insurance similar to my employers at the same cost. I had to pay a lot more.

But that’s what I mean by building it into your rate. If you know insurance costs you $20k to be similar to what a big company pays only $10k, then add it into your contract. Of course, contracting isn’t for everyone, especially if you can’t get a high enough rate to be more valuable to you than w2.

Re: The Challenges of Being in the New Contract Workforce

#275

Post by ttoinou »

lovich wrote: post #259
ttoinou wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry English is not my mother tongue, does unite mean to syndicate oneself ?

Unite means to join together. You could say you united two pieces of Lego when you snap them together, or when people join in a group it can be called uniting them. The USA is the United States of America because the different states joined together into one nation. My apologies if there was a misunderstanding over language. Your English is good enough that I had assumed you were a native speaker

Ok that's what I wanted to say. We are all voluntarily united by the same brand of smartphone we buy, why not the same for a healthcare / others benefits groups ?

I gave an example. There could be a franchise of co-working space / hotels / resorts all over the world for nomadic or independent people and they would do the bargaining for their clients.

Re: The Challenges of Being in the New Contract Workforce

#276

Post by chc »

pathseeker wrote: post #270
chc wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of those solutions that seems simple and neat, but falls apart on a cursory inspection. For example, it implies that the poor should die of curable illnesses. It also largely ignores the economics of the situation — healthcare is inherently expensive because it involves high technology, high safety standards and lots of training. You can't have it be like food, where people just get it when they want it,…

The comparison is to employers providing the healthcare! Poor people aren't getting healthcare from their employer.

Lots of people making below-average incomes get healthcare through their employer. And regardless, it's certainly possible with employer-provided healthcare for everyone who has a job to get insurance through it, whether or not that's happening now. It doesn't make sense to arbitrarily decide that an idea can only be compared to one specific implementation of one specific other idea — it should be compared to the strongest competing ideas, and its drawbacks should be acknowledged on their own merits.

Re: The Challenges of Being in the New Contract Workforce

#277

Post by seangrogg »

acconrad wrote: post #260
seangrogg wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interesting. Thanks for being candid with your freshness to this experience; it's valuable all the same. A few more questions, as your availability permits: * Have you considered an S-corp? If so, reasons against listing it as an option? * Any recommendations in general contractors (even if not specific ones, just things to look for in a general contractor)? Thanks for your time and response(s)!

* I haven't considered it, I just do what my accountant advises * A general contractor? I hear that term I think of those guys who work on your house. Could you be more specific?

* fair enough

* I guess I just lifted the term as it seemed appropriate; given you mentioned subcontracting I imagine there is an entity above you that does the direct contracting - any recommendations for what to look for in that contracting authority?

Re: The Challenges of Being in the New Contract Workforce

#278

Post by downrightmike »

rb808 wrote: post #16

I wonder if contract workforce will fade as unemployment falls. The last 10 years the job market has been bad so many people had no choice but to work on contract. Now they have more of a choice.

Odds are that these people are not reskilling and will be left out of any new boost we have. Also consider where and when any recovery happens, most people already on tenuous ground are less likely to move to take advantage of that.

Re: The Challenges of Being in the New Contract Workforce

#280

Post by module0000 »

acdha wrote: post #242
module0000 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea - we can work and pay taxes to give you a "boon" as you try out your next big idea. Sounds great for you, not so great for me. Hard pass.

As FireBeyond noted, the system you’re defending takes more of your money: not only are U.S. medical costs substantially higher – on average! It’s even worse for independent buyers — but the layers of inefficiency designed into the system mean that the outcomes are worse. The other side of this is considering what happens if you get sick: should we just let you die and bill your next of kin for the cleanup costs? If…

I'm not trolling you - but yes I am that heartless. This could have a lot to do with upbringing, but mine was full of analogies of humanity to nature. One of those was a firm belief that there is no "safety net" to catch me or my family. If I succeed, they succeed - if I fail, then we all fail. Everyone is responsible for themselves.

Everyone's particular set of values will vary, but that is mine.

Post reply on HN