> The idea that all gig economy jobs will go away if labor costs rise and they pay more humanely ignores basic economics.
What? I really had to do a double take.
If the net cost of employing a driver rises while the revenue per employee stays the same, then the business could easily become non-profitable. If each driver is netting the company an average of $200 in profit per month, and the insurance they now have to buy costs $300 per employee then now the company is losing $100 per employee. And that's a conservative figure for healthcare, the average plan in California costs over $400 per employee [1].
I'd have to say the same thing back to you: claiming that jobs are secure even if authorities mandate a substantial per-employee expense ignores basic economics.
What? I really had to do a double take.
If the net cost of employing a driver rises while the revenue per employee stays the same, then the business could easily become non-profitable. If each driver is netting the company an average of $200 in profit per month, and the insurance they now have to buy costs $300 per employee then now the company is losing $100 per employee. And that's a conservative figure for healthcare, the average plan in California costs over $400 per employee [1].
I'd have to say the same thing back to you: claiming that jobs are secure even if authorities mandate a substantial per-employee expense ignores basic economics.
1. https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/single-coverage/?c... And my choice of source was conservative, too. Other sources claim more than twice that: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/09/employers-to-spend-about-100...