shakes fist at sky "if only we didn't have to pay those pesky benefits then we wouldn't be forced to make the roles abusive contractor/part-time roles...Wild people even try to take this stance.

▲

groundzeros2015 an hour ago | parent [-]

I'm baffled. Do you not see the normative vs descriptive claim here?

The reality is that requiring benefits imposes a cost, and employers manage that cost by limiting who qualifies. So yes, this hurt many workers - and disproportionately impacted disadvantaged people who didn't make the full-time cliff.

Ignoring increntives is actually shaking your fist at the sky.

▲

rectang an hour ago | parent [-]

Then can we agree on a government funded safety net for the sake of labor mobility? ;)

Typically the real disagreement here is over whether workers should get benefits at all.

EDIT: can we get another `vouch` or two for groundzeros2015's currently [dead] reply? It's well-argued and an olive branch and deserves to be visible.

	▲	groundzeros2015 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I do agree. A government funded benefit is an explicit tax and spend. A mandate to provide a benefit is a hidden tax where it's not clear who is paying.