posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 07:45 AM
reply to post by cosmicexplorer
I think that if companies no longer had to hire full time employees they would no longer have to provide full time benefits. Gone would be the days of
being able to get insurance through your job. Scratch any hope of retirement benefits as well.
Sure, it would save some companies money. With no full time employees the "ObamaCare" stipulations would not apply to them. Heck, a lot of companies
are already cutting their employees back to under 30 hours per week so they don't have to provide affordable insurance without the threat of the
$3000 per employee penalty for not providing it. However, how many full time people would a company have to hire just to pick and handle all of the
people doing these "small jobs"?
Another thought: With no or very few full time jobs, people would be constantly scrambling and competing for all of these "small jobs" and living
without job security. That could be pretty darn stressful! What if you couldn't get enough small jobs in a month to pay your rent, your utilities,
your grocery bill? And If I were a creditor, I doubt I would extend credit for a house or a car to somebody without a secure job history.
If you bounce from small job to small job, technically you would be a contractor, and would be taxed at a much higher rate, however you wouldn't make
nearly as much money as a regular job because with everyone doing it there would be so much competition that you would be underbid by people willing
to do the work dirt cheap. Minimum wage doesn't apply on a contracted job, if you win the bid you do the job for thecontracted price, with the lowest
bid generally winning. The problems go on and on!
When you start getiing into the details of such a plan, it's only a good idea for the companies- but not good for workers at all!