Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes this is going to happen and it's not only because of employers - it's also because of employees. I'm a gen x business owner. Most of the folks I try to hire want to work less than full time, want options for working from home, want to be on vacation when they want and would definitely prefer hourly (highly) paid work so they can work when they want and not work when they don't work. I'm moving to this model with my employees because they don't want to be tied down to 40 hour weeks with full time requirements.

The reason they want hourly is they have seen employers abuse “exempt status” with their employees and no real enforcement of labor laws. Self inflicted wound of corp America.

Meant to say “abuse exempt status with their parents….”

Anonymous wrote:Yes this is going to happen and it's not only because of employers - it's also because of employees. I'm a gen x business owner. Most of the folks I try to hire want to work less than full time, want options for working from home, want to be on vacation when they want and would definitely prefer hourly (highly) paid work so they can work when they want and not work when they don't work. I'm moving to this model with my employees because they don't want to be tied down to 40 hour weeks with full time requirements.

The reason they want hourly is they have seen employers abuse “exempt status” with their employees and no real enforcement of labor laws. Self inflicted wound of corp America.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it can if health insurance continues to be tied to employment.

Health insurance should not be tied to employment.

It’s not. You’re free to buy your own insurance on the state exchange.

And it costs too much compared to employer plans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it can if health insurance continues to be tied to employment.

Health insurance should not be tied to employment.

It’s not. You’re free to buy your own insurance on the state exchange.

Anonymous wrote:Increasingly, safety net programs for food/housing/medical care will have work requirements that keep the working class scrambling.

It’s a terrible combination, since most work requirements have minimum required hours, but the “on demand” aspect of gig work means work hours are increasingly outside people’s control.

I can see it as a growing long term trend without becoming the dominant employment model. There are plenty of employers that see the clear cost/flexibility advantages of having an on-demand labor pool. Even at the higher levels, companies may be willing to pay somebody a high labor rate but only for intermittent periods of effort.

In our current times, I expect we will just let the "market sort things out" while the government mostly stands back. The trick will be to make sure the labor pool stays just desperate enough that the employers (aka donors) keep the upper hand. Increasingly, safety net programs for food/housing/medical care will have work requirements that keep the working class scrambling.

The usual rules will apply: the wealthy will gain ever higher shares of our nation's wealth. Corporations will run glowing ads featuring workers with "grit" who have made it. Those left behind will struggle with ill health, financial insecurity, addictions of all sorts and a generally gloomy outlook for their kids.

My income is not secure and, of course, comes without health insurance or a retirement plan. We decided to have my wife skip out of her career path and take a boring job with a non-profit mostly for health insurance.

This does seem to be the trend and it's largely a way to control costs and to have the flexibility to get rid of people when they are no longer busy. A lot of service providers (e.g., consultants, accountants, lawyers, etc.) have arrangements that are similar to gig workers, even if perhaps they are better paid than what most people think of as gig workers. When framed this way, the problem with "gig" worker is not necessarily lower pay, but rather it's the lack of security and the fact that all burden/responsibility is on the individual worker.

On the flipside, if you're entrepreneurial and willing to work extra hard, you may actually end up financially better off, as the rewards are there for the taking. The problem for society is that you end up with a lot of inequality, as there is a much greater degree of divergence of results.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it can if health insurance continues to be tied to employment.

Health insurance should not be tied to employment.

We are returning to the conditions before the industrial revolution, where workers did piecework with no benefits and there was no corporate paternalism. The centralized model evolved from the invention of the factory where it was necessary to have the workers physically present to operate the means of production. That is no longer required in many cases so many will be let go from the mother ship.

Yes this is going to happen and it's not only because of employers - it's also because of employees. I'm a gen x business owner. Most of the folks I try to hire want to work less than full time, want options for working from home, want to be on vacation when they want and would definitely prefer hourly (highly) paid work so they can work when they want and not work when they don't work. I'm moving to this model with my employees because they don't want to be tied down to 40 hour weeks with full time requirements.

I don't think it can if health insurance continues to be tied to employment.

I'm sure companies would love to only pay people for the hours they are needed but I don't see that working out on a large scale. People will need multiple jobs to survive and the company won't like it when someone isn't available when they want them.

Find another job. Just don't take these jobs. Why would a technical writer take a job like that when you could go in business for yourself, and then claim all the tax benefits for being self-employed?

I've been wondering the same. Not sure how health insurance, retirement plans, benefits in general etc. figure into this though. You have to get married for health insurance and one partner has a "steady" job?
It feels dystopian.

Do you think in the future most employment will look like gig work where you are either always a contractor or the employer will only use you “on demand”? I have a friend who has one kid who just graduated college and another who is looking for summer work between his freshman and sophomore year. Both are finding that lots of employers want “on demand” work. Even something as simple as being an associate at Target is no longer simple. She said her son applied to be one and that they are only offering on demand/flex work for as needed employment. Her daughter got a job with a major company as a technical writer but they are paying by the hour and not guaranteeing how much work she’ll get per week even though she is a considered a full time employee. This with the recent writers striking because they don’t want to work in gig like conditions has me thinking that these situations will become more common.