[gotostatement]

> It might seem attractive initially, but within a few months the status quo will have reset and those employees who were living paycheck to paycheck will still be living paycheck to paycheck, just now it will be day by day waiting for their accrued amount to increase.

Except now they have money available to them in realtime, continuously according to the work they've put in, without having to wait for discrete points in time where their bank account refills.

> This unexpected expenses thing sounds like poor justification to me.

The fact that people use it shows people want it. The paternalism towards people who don't have enough money is really staggering. This line of argumentation reeks of "Poor people cant manage their finances - they dont know whats good to them"

> And charging the company Vs the employee is no different. If you didn't charge the company they could instead increase the wages of their staff by the equivalent amount. You are just taking money out of the potential pot that goes to the staff. Staff costs is just a single line on our summary p&l which includes salaries and benefits.

Salaries have other pressures maintaining them besides available funds for salary, like minimum wage and market rates. As we have known for years based on the utter failure of "trickle-down economics", salaries paid and available funds often have little to do with one-another.