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

281–290 of 304 posts

Re: The Challenges of Being in the New Contract Workforce

#281

Post by gambiting »

pathseeker wrote: post #271
gambiting wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

Oh I haven't confused anything. And you seem unaware how nationalised health insurance works - let me explain. Yes, my employer pays into my health insurance. I guess you could say that my health insurance is tied to my work, sure. Except that the crucial difference between what you imagine and what actually happens is that everyone who is a citizen is always covered for everything, always, unconditionally. Even if I lose my job, hey, I don't have to fear for my life because I'm still 100% covered. In fact I could be unemployed, homeless, and yes, you guessed it - I'm still fully covered, and so is everyone else. Same with a pension - everyone will get one, but it's the employer's responsibility to pay into the scheme, not mine - why would it be mine?

Re: The Challenges of Being in the New Contract Workforce

#282

Post by Jesus_Jones »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #235
bomb199 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, this conversation represents the two classes. One guy is living life probably pulling in upwards of $150,000 a year (or living in a lower cost of living place with six figures income). Simply budgeting well will cover all these things. And another thinks that "budgeting" means you don't get to eat on Mondays so you can keep on bills.

Person 1: Life is easier if you budget properly Person 2: But what if you're a diabetic blind one legged cancer patient?

I guess I'm person 2? I think that's not really what I was saying.

Here's my personal experience - I had a single parent who always worked and always had health insurance through her employer. In her 50s she got hurt and couldn't work much (no cobra, no money either) and lost her insurance. She worked in retail for a while. Then she got cancer and died. Maybe if she'd had more frequent checkups it might have been caught earlier? Maybe less stress would have helped? Who knows. I think if we had national health insurance or health insurance you can't lose, then a lot of people wouldn't face this problem, it would help in the aggregate. She never got to 65, so she didn't jump onto the safe medicare.

Re: The Challenges of Being in the New Contract Workforce

#283

Post by gambiting »

pathseeker wrote: post #273
gambiting wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You have to be given one day off a week by law. Theoretically most companies could also work Saturdays but don't.

Re: The Challenges of Being in the New Contract Workforce

#284

Post by blackbagboys »

crazy1van wrote: post #118
dv_dt wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at the history of labor and the 40 hour week. You have to pick a standard, otherwise the pick will default to employers who will choose ever increasing hours for a fixed salary. If we pick one together it's easier than standing as a lone worker saying 7.5 is reasonable. Modern civilization has advanced, why should the work week stay at 40 (and eroding in many workplaces in America?)

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

If your desire for more money degrades the quality of life of everyone else in the workforce - you should absolutely be prohibited.

Let us suppose, what is at least supposable, whether it be the fact or not—that a general reduction of the hours of factory labour, say from ten to nine, would be for the advantage of the workpeople: that they would receive as high wages, or nearly as high, for nine hours’ labour as they receive for ten. If this would be the result, and if the operatives generally are convinced that it would, the limitation, some may say, will be adopted spontaneously. I answer, that it will not be adopted unless the body of operatives bind themselves to one another to abide by it. A workman who refused to work more than nine hours while there were others who worked ten, would either not be employed at all, or if employed, must submit to lose one-tenth of his wages. However convinced, therefore, he may be that it is the interest of the class to work short time, it is contrary to his own interest to set the example, unless he is well assured that all or most others will follow it. But suppose a general agreement of the whole class: might not this be effectual without the sanction of law? Not unless enforced by opinion with a rigour practically equal to that of law. For however beneficial the observance of the regulation might be to the class collectively, the immediate interest of every individual would lie in violating it: and the more numerous those were who adhered to the rule, the more would individuals gain by departing from it.

Re: The Challenges of Being in the New Contract Workforce

#285

Post by lostcolony »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #211
crankylinuxuser wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, you found some company willing to take your money claiming you had "insurance". In reality, had you actually try to use it, would have been in "pre-existing condition" hell. Because the asthma could have cause $ailment, and they don't cover preexisting. Tood bad, so sad. Glad you paid the premiums!

I filled out paperwork in which I divulged my pre-existing conditions, including my asthma, and that was calculated into the premium price I paid.

Which points out the problem. Childhood asthma is a super common, yet extremely low risk condition for adults. Yet it was grounds to refuse coverage, or to raise premiums on the individual, rather than price it into the overall pool.

So imagine it's something high risk. "Oh, you have cancer? Yeah, we're not taking you on. Or if we do, we're going to charge you what we expect you to cost, which is going to be insanely high, to where you probably can't afford it."

Net effect: you can't afford healthcare.

The whole point of insurance is to spread the cost and risk widely, so that the healthy outliers help cover the cost of the unhealthy outliers. The fact that it's not always clear who those are (i.e., the healthy eating jogger who has a brain aneurysm and requires multiple expensive surgeries and months of care) should help with any perceived unfairness (though people are really, really bad at accepting that bad things can happen to them).

Re: The Challenges of Being in the New Contract Workforce

#286

Post by TheCoelacanth »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #262
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do seem to be arguing that Uber drivers should have sufficient money to do a variety of things based on completely erroneous information about how much money they have.

Let's put some context on this. Disability insurance is $30/mo. And that amount is generally tax deductible for the self employed. Yes, if you're poor it will be harder to buy health insurance, but you can avoid consumer debt at virtually any income. You can save up an emergency fund at virtually any income level. The fact that it might get more difficult to do any of these things as you get closer and closer to the…

Disability insurance is $30/month for you, a person whose job has a near zero risk of causing a disability and whose job can still be performed even with many forms of disabilities. It is dramatically more for people with riskier jobs.

Re: The Challenges of Being in the New Contract Workforce

#287

Post by Consultant32452 »

lostcolony wrote: post #285
Consultant32452 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I filled out paperwork in which I divulged my pre-existing conditions, including my asthma, and that was calculated into the premium price I paid.

Which points out the problem. Childhood asthma is a super common, yet extremely low risk condition for adults. Yet it was grounds to refuse coverage, or to raise premiums on the individual, rather than price it into the overall pool. So imagine it's something high risk. "Oh, you have cancer? Yeah, we're not taking you on. Or if we do, we're going to charge you what we expect you to cost, which is going to be insanely…

We're talking about whether it's reasonably possible for an average person to start their own small business or start consulting if they don't have another income earner in the home to back them up.

Your response is, "Well, what if you have cancer?" Fine, I wasn't trying to solve every problem for every person. I'm not suggesting that the current state of healthcare in the US is ideal, or even good. Instead of seeing that there is a path forward and considering that each individual might have to adjust to their own needs, or might have to take a different path altogether, you're just trying to shut down the conversation because the solution I provided is not universally applicable. That's an unnecessary and unhelpful response.

Re: The Challenges of Being in the New Contract Workforce

#288

Post by Consultant32452 »

rectang wrote: post #268
Consultant32452 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what started this conversation. /u/rectang made the following statement: >It's also expensive, inconvenient, time-consuming, and risky to be poor. None of the suggestions you make are "easy" for poor people. >Consider how much time, energy, and expertise it takes even to research disability insurance and buy the appropriate product. This whole thing is about me calling out rectang for suggesting that p…

Me: "People don't run fast on broken legs." You: "The soft bigotry of low expectations..."

Me: It's possible to start a small business without having another person in the house backing you financially.

You: But what if you're mentally disabled?

Re: The Challenges of Being in the New Contract Workforce

#289

Post by Consultant32452 »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #286
Consultant32452 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's put some context on this. Disability insurance is $30/mo. And that amount is generally tax deductible for the self employed. Yes, if you're poor it will be harder to buy health insurance, but you can avoid consumer debt at virtually any income. You can save up an emergency fund at virtually any income level. The fact that it might get more difficult to do any of these things as you get closer and closer to the…

Disability insurance is $30/month for you , a person whose job has a near zero risk of causing a disability and whose job can still be performed even with many forms of disabilities. It is dramatically more for people with riskier jobs.

$30/mo is the national average. Yes, if you're a trapeze artist it is probably going to be higher. But usually, so will your income.

Re: The Challenges of Being in the New Contract Workforce

#290

Post by Consultant32452 »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #214
Consultant32452 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Single father and consultant of 5 years here. It's easy if you're conservative/responsible with your money. Buy health insurance, get short and long term disability. Keep 6 months of expenses in your emergency fund. Don't have any consumer debt. I think the hardest part for most people is being able to not burn through their money as fast as they get it.

Keep 6 months of expenses in your emergency fund. You have to have sufficient income to consistently cover basics with money leftover. Some people simply don't have that.

The vast majority of people do have that. Whether or not they behave in an financially responsible manner is a different question altogether.
Post reply on HN