질문
Why does a steady life take more than it used to?
가장 중요한 것에 스티커를 쓰세요. 근거가 있는 아이디어는 예약된 자리를 얻을 수 있습니다.
닫힘 · 대책 단계로 돌아가기
게스트로 보는 중. 참여하려면 닉네임을 입력하세요.
내 스티커
아이디어 하나에 한 장, 모두 5장. 최소 한 표는 써야 합니다.
놓친 아이디어를 위해 예약된 자리가 5개 있습니다. 링크와 함께 하나를 추천하세요. 2명이 출처가 관련 있다고 하면 반영됩니다.
이유
단계가 끝나면 추천된 것 중 하나는 무작위 추첨으로, 나머지는 추천 수에 따라 들어갑니다. 구분마다 최대 하나입니다. 모델은 페이지가 같은 주제를 다루는지만 확인하며, 그 페이지가 주장을 증명하는지는 확인하지 않습니다. 그 판단은 방이 합니다. 아무도 지지하지 않는 추천은 자리를 얻지 못합니다.
We would pay more if the work carried the price
Meaning the general pattern, not one case.
아직 아무 말도 없습니다.
묶음 1
The things that used to be bought once are now rented forever
12표논의하기
What used to be a job is now a series of contracts
6표논의하기
묶음 2
Compliance costs the same for nine employees as for nine hundred
0표논의하기
A large competitor can absorb a regulation that would close us
Narrower than it reads — the wider claim is someone else's card.
6표논의 중 (1)
묶이지 않음
Assets rose faster than wages for four decades
12표논의하기
Every cost that rose was passed to us and could not be passed on
Narrower than it reads — the wider claim is someone else's card.
3표논의 중 (1)
Every new rule consolidates the market a little more
Not an accusation: an institution can do this with everyone acting in good faith.
4표논의하기
The rules make dismissal costly, so we do not hire in the first place
1표논의하기
Automation is subsidised through the tax code and hiring is not
Meaning the general pattern, not one case.
0표논의하기
Employers' taxes are charged on the person, so people are the thing to cut
Narrower than it reads — the wider claim is someone else's card.
3표논의하기
The apprenticeship system is designed for firms with an HR department
1표논의하기
The chain that replaced the shop pays less and takes the money out of town
1표논의하기
We would take the risk on a person if the risk were shared
0표논의 중 (1)
We would pay more if the work carried the price
Meaning the general pattern, not one case.
Energy, rent and insurance tripled and the invoice did not
3표논의하기
One large buyer sets our margin and our payment terms
0표논의하기
We are the ones who see it and nobody asks us anything
1표논의하기
So nobody trains and everyone complains about skills
11표논의하기
Hiring someone permanently now feels like signing a mortgage
14표논의하기
Cash flow, not profit, decides whether anyone is hired
14표논의하기
Nobody in a ministry has ever met a payroll
1표논의하기
We are paid in ninety days and pay wages in thirty
I mean this as an observation; I would want it tested.
1표논의하기
So we use contracts and agencies and everyone loses
To be precise: this is about the mechanism, not anyone's motives.
3표논의하기
The customer chooses on price and always has
0표논의하기
A single wage no longer supports a household
15표논의하기
Consolidation removes the employer competition that raised wages
6표논의하기
The policies are written for a company with a government affairs team
2표논의하기
We train people and a larger firm hires them at more
Not an accusation: an institution can do this with everyone acting in good faith.
0표논의하기
A machine is a capital allowance and a worker is a liability
I mean this as an observation; I would want it tested.
3표논의하기
Business representation is dominated by firms unlike ours
1표논의하기
Agencies take a margin for work we used to do ourselves
I mean this as an observation; I would want it tested.
1표논의하기