En este artículo The Economist enfoca los cambios sociales causados por la tecnología, pero desde el punto de vista del empleo tradicional en oficina, el clásico de 9 a 6 en contraste con el cada vez más extendido freelance y el trabajo por demanda. Un punto interesante es que la relación entre servicios sociales y trabajo en planilla está cada vez más en entredicho, en un mundo donde millones trabajan por su cuenta y muchos generan altos ingresos de esa manera, no necesariamente tendrían que ser todos subsidiados por los que trabajan de forma formal. The truth is more nuanced. Consumers are clear winners; so are Western workers who value flexibility over security, such as women who want to combine work with child-rearing. Taxpayers stand to gain if on-demand labour is used to improve efficiency in the provision of public services. But workers who value security over flexibility, including a lot of middle-aged lawyers, doctors and taxi drivers, feel justifiably threatened. And the on-demand economy certainly produces unfairnesses: taxpayers will also end up supporting many contract workers who have never built up pensions. This sense of nuance should inform policymaking. Governments that outlaw on-demand firms are simply handicapping the rest of their economies. But that does not mean they should sit on their hands. The ways governments measure employment and wages will have to change. Many European tax systems treat freelances as second-class citizens, while American states have different rules for “contract workers” that could be tidied up. Too much of the welfare state is delivered through employers, especially pensions and health care: both should be tied to the individual and made portable, one area where Obamacare was a big step forward. economist/news/leaders/21637393-rise-demand-economy-poses-difficult-questions-workers-companies-and?fsrc=scn%2Ftw_ec%2Fworkers_on_tap
Posted on: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 23:18:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015