I am truly terrible at washing my windows. Every time I wash them, they end up covered in streaks - basically I'm just rearranging the streaks a couple of times a year.
I've considered on and off hiring someone to wash my windows, but I have no idea how to hire someone good. I'd be happy to pay well for completely streak-free windows, but if they're just going to rearrange the streaks, that isn't worth anything to me - I can do that myself.
The problem, of course, is that all window-washers and any number of random odd-job people are incentivized to say "Of course I can give you streak-free windows!" They need money. They need to hustle. Conventional wisdom is that you should apply for jobs even if you aren't confident you can do them.
But this makes it much harder to find someone who actually is good - especially if, like me, you're unaccustomed to hiring people - so I end up hiring no one.
I have heard small business owners make similar complaints - they're often in the market for skilled, competent help before they're in a position to put resources into long-term development, but, because they don't have much experience with hiring, they have trouble finding/identifying people who actually are skilled and competent in and among all the gumption/desperation applicants, so they often end up not hiring at all.
In the shower the other day, it occurred to me that basic income might improve this situation. An effective basic income program would eliminate the desperation factor, so employer and prospective employee could have a straightforward conversation about their needs and abilities.
So I could say "What I really want is completely streakless windows. A cleaning job that results in streaks has no value to me. Are you able to guarantee streaklessness?"
And my prospective window cleaner would have the leeway to say "You know, I don't think I can do a job that could make you happy." Or to quote me a ridiculously high price since I'm so needy and demanding, which I can then accept or reject depending on what it's worth to me.
And my prospective window cleaner would be far less likely to be a person who's bad at cleaning windows, because people who are bad at cleaning windows aren't going to be going around looking for window cleaning jobs.
I did one brief, cursory google and couldn't find much on how basic income interacts with the hiring experience from an employer's point of view. So I started looking into the logistics of Ontario's basic income pilot, to see whether it could produce relevant results . . . and, that very day, the government cancelled the basic income pilot.
***
In recent discussions of introducing pharmacare, I was surprised to see the idea raised of pharmacare covering people who don't already have a drug plan through work.
That seems like an administrative nightmare. (How will the government know who does and doesn't have drug coverage through work? Will pharmacare cover my the large co-pay in my workplace plan? Do we have to worry about coverage gaps if we lose our job?)
But it also seems like it would be a lot more convenient for employers if pharmacare were universal. Employers wouldn't have to administer or pay for drug plans any more. Employers who don't provide drug plans wouldn't lose quality employees who can pick and choose to other employers with better benefits. And employers who already provide good benefits would immediately realize significant savings by not having to do so any more.
***
When they were talking about creating an Ontario pension plan, they were also talking about having it apply only to people who don't have pensions through work.
Again, it seems like it would be far more convenient for employers if the public pension plan covered everyone, for exactly the same reasons. It would save employers the trouble of administering a pension plan, employers who are unable to provide a pension plan wouldn't lose out on quality talent, and employers who already provide a pension plan would immediately realize significant savings by not having to do so any more.
***
Discourse about social programs tends to focus on what it can do for regular people, which is, of course, where the focus in planning and delivering social programs should be.
However, I've noticed a strong correlation between people who are opposed to social programs and people whose roles involve hiring. I also remember seeing things from time to time where organizations representing small businesses object to the fact that government employees receive benefits, presumably because their tax dollars are supporting providing benefits that they can't offer their own employees.
It would be useful to have the data to quantify how social programs can make life easier for employers, in addition to making life easier for ordinary people.
2 comments:
Your window-washing point is very relevant to child care and dog care, two occupations that many people see as an easy way to earn money, and think little training, experience, or competency is needed. I don't know if basic guaranteed income would help in those cases, though. Social services usually provides such a bare minimum or less. People are always going to look for ways to supplement.
Pharmacare and pensions, I hear this all the time. Imagine the incentive for employers to drop their benefit plans!
Re social programs making things easier and less expensive for employers, nowhere is this more obvious than in the US, where employers (those that still do) pay enormous sums to provide health insurance to employees. Single-payer would eliminate this. Employers should have been lobbying the government for universal health insurance for decades.
occupations that many people see as an easy way to earn money, and think little training, experience, or competency is needed
That kind of ties in with the bootstrap/protestant work ethic thing. Because there's also the notion out there that people *should* be looking for ways to supplement, and that you *should* be "willing" to do "unskilled" jobs as part of the virtue of "hard work" - without regard for whether you can actually do the work well.
Post a Comment