[bryanlarsen]

If yes, is this not a good a thing? Part-time employees are not significantly different than contractors in terms of benefits owed so it's not a major cost for that use case. And if you're working full-time for somebody, don't you deserve the benefits everybody else gets?

[ansible]

> And if you're working full-time for somebody, don't you deserve the benefits everybody else gets?

I'd argue that if you deserve benefits like everyone else.

Especially ridiculous is the situation some people I know of are in. They are working two or three part-time jobs because they can't find a full-time position. The places that employ them have many part-time positions, and fewer full-time positions. And these people don't get benefits.

So you've got people who are working 40+ hours a week, for employers who have enough hours to work to have full-time employees, but instead have part-time job openings instead.

All so that the employers don't have to pay for benefits.

[JeffL]

I would guess it's because their labor is not worth minimum wage plus all the extra overhead costs of a full time employee. It's people trying to get by despite stupid price controls that don't reflect reality.

[ansible]

And because we've tied health care to employment directly. If only we wanted to have affordable health care for everyone...

[breerly]

Yes and no.

This will force companies to hire more employees, true, but at the cost of a much smaller overall workforce. Remember that cost is a constraint for businesses.

Depends what is more valuable from a human + capitalism perspective, fewer work opportunities that pay better or more competition and “starter/flexible” work overall.

[bryanlarsen]

> but at the cost of a much smaller overall workforce.

That's what people predict about minimum wage increases too. Yet the effect has always been smaller than predicted, sometimes even non-existent.