You'd think that where workers are easy to fire such as in the US, there would be less incentive to use contractors over employees, than in places with very rigid rules for firing.
That sure weighs in the other direction. But presumably no contractor or other non-employee would (should) work for less cost to the employer since they still have to fund pensions, healthcare etc?
I'm guessing that the situation is that in some sectors there are people now working as "contractors" for the same type of money they would be making as employees - but without benefits.
So it's a good thing at least that all this translates to fantastic growth which ultimately trickles down... /s
Maybe there is less incentive to use contractors than in a country with really rigid laws, like France say. These data just show that there is still an incentive to use contractors over employees which is very interesting.
