[menacingly]

This is a reasonable position and well-stated, but my concern is the implication that you will be vilified if you start a business that can't maintain a full time workforce with benefits.

So, let's say you're an investor. You've got the choice of:

1) invest in a business with traditional happy lifer employees

2) invest in a business that treats its workforce like disposable contractors and may eventually become an Enemy of the People's Press, but offers higher potential returns, and may be able to eke out an existence in a niche that #1 could never serve.

3) invest in some less active financial instrument alchemy that employs zero local people and threatens no publicity waves

There is (maybe) an argument that #1 is preferable to #2, but it's at least complicated. However, I think it's general agreed that both #1 & #2 are preferable to #3.

If we're already talking Unions and unfair treatment of contractors 5 years into the existence of a type 1 here, one that no one knows could even exist under traditional employment circumstances, we may very well be driving funding into the reduced hassle of #3.

That's certainly what it would do to me, though granted my "fuck it" threshold is 5-10x lower than the average person's.

[noelwelsh]

I very much do not like the argument you are making, as the implication is that no employer, or indeed anyone with power, should be criticised.

Society should work for the benefit of society, not just those in a position of power. We are seeing a change in how employment works, and we (i.e. society) need to work out how to handle this change. This article is part of the debate. You should not try to shut down the debate.

[menacingly]

I regret that I came across that way, because the debate is great. Criticism is important.

I just think before you fight for something, you should be certain that what you're after is worth winning.

[tinbucket]

In scenarios #2 and #3 very few people are winning. I think you'd be hard-pressed to get majority support against #1, which would be more generally beneficial for society than the other two.

[menacingly]

Except that it almost by definition employs fewer people, so the people hypothetically employed by #2 may prefer it to the unemployment of #1

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

4) invest in a business that employs slaves

I think it is generally agreed that #4 is preferable to #3. Because local jobs!111

I mean, seriously? That is your argument?

[menacingly]

It's unfortunate that a frequent response is "so what? who wants those jobs? I sure don't, so I'll decide for these other people who I assume need me to"

This is the thinking that leads to the shuttering of harsh garment factories in the developing world so the employees can go back to child sex work.