> What would the world be like if contract/freelance/part time/short term work were the default?
I've heard this line a lot. The interesting thing is that there are areas, even inside tech, that this is the default. And it's nto necessarily better. For example, steelworks or the oil industry. A pretty significant portion of the employees in these fields (including IT sectors) are contractors. They have minimal job security and limited motivation to excel (even in the steel industry where perks are fairly decent).
I know this empirically because whenever we have a job opening there is a queue of people from these industries looking for a more stable role, even if it means a pay cut. Which somewhat gets to the heart of it - this is about job security!
What you are describing works well when you look at the top 0.5%, or maybe less, of employees. For the rest, the current system has evolved to favour the employee and provide stability for them month-to-month.
Now don't get me wrong; it's imperfect, and we need to evolve the system again! But short-term working is not a coverall solution IMO.
But short-term working is not a coverall solution IMO.
Indeed. A coverall solution would be a basic income for all permanent residents, coupled with a nationalized healthcare program. People want stable employment because freelancing is so risky without the benefit of any guaranteed regular paycheck or insurance. If the government actually provided a minimum subsistence income and insurance program for working adults, there would be much less incentive to get "married" to a corporation, and the labor market would be much more fluid, fungible and efficient as a result.
Agreed. I'm guessing there should be (in the realm of possible solutions) some sort of intermediate arrangement, or a whole spectrum of intermediate arrangements. These may previously have been too complex to manage, but might now be plausible.
(Can't help but feel like there's some sort of parallel between this and conventional attitudes towards marriage! Just because marriage is a little bizzare doesn't mean that the only alternative should be bachelor life forever.)
One pain point that should be solved is this; changing jobs is expensive, or risky. If you don't time your notice period correctly you can end up having to last on a short salary. I know a few people who got into debt in this way.
I recently had to think about this and for me, moving roles is worth probably about ~£2K salary in "life admin" (i.e. if the new role is not offer two grand more then it's not worth moving, from a purely financial motivation)
I've heard this line a lot. The interesting thing is that there are areas, even inside tech, that this is the default. And it's nto necessarily better. For example, steelworks or the oil industry. A pretty significant portion of the employees in these fields (including IT sectors) are contractors. They have minimal job security and limited motivation to excel (even in the steel industry where perks are fairly decent).
I know this empirically because whenever we have a job opening there is a queue of people from these industries looking for a more stable role, even if it means a pay cut. Which somewhat gets to the heart of it - this is about job security!
What you are describing works well when you look at the top 0.5%, or maybe less, of employees. For the rest, the current system has evolved to favour the employee and provide stability for them month-to-month.
Now don't get me wrong; it's imperfect, and we need to evolve the system again! But short-term working is not a coverall solution IMO.