Hey Pablo, congrats for the article, really well written and extremely interesting.
I was wondering if you had any interesting input regarding what is better for a blog between writing a short article every day or a longer in-depth article once a week. Thanks, Michele
There's some different schools of thought on this.
A lot of content marketers and SEO experts recommend lots of articles targeting long tail keywords. However, the newer thought process is to write longer more in-depth articles and spend equal time promoting those articles.
Hey Sean. This is pretty interesting. My only concern would be that longer articles could be more difficult to "digest" for the reader and therefore less engaging. I would expect a viral professional article to need to be long and a viral casual article to need to be shorter. Is that something you have ever researched ?
Sharing something doesn't mean people have read it in full. :) I know I sometimes start reading an article, "get where it's going" and pass it on.
More often than not, sharing long article is a form of self-praise (for me). I feel very pleased with myself sharing a piece from Aeon on Facebook, amidst cats and babies and other stuff: "Look at me, I'm deep and I'm making Facebook a smarter place".
So, it makes total sense that long read gets more shares per view, but it doesn't necessarily mean deeper "engagement".
I have not researched that specifically, but the team at BuzzSumo analyzed 120 million articles and found a similar result. They found the optimal length for an article on Facebook to be 2000-2500 words and on LinkedIn to be 3500-4000.
So what you suggest could be true, the length of an article that does well on Facebook is shorter than LinkedIn and I'd argue that an article on Facebook is likely for a more casual reader than on LinkedIn.
However, even 2000 words is a fairly long article. They also found that articles under 500 words perform the worst.
>On health insurance, to be precise the cost is $0.10/hour if a worker reaches a precise threshold in weekly hours, so far below 20%.
If you can get decent insurance for $.10/hr, do let me know, because I'm paying rather a lot more than that right now.
My company has health insurance for all three employees (counting me) - it looks like you are looking at more than $500 and less than $1000 a month, before dependents, for insurance I would consider "not great but good enough" a lot more than $0.10/hr.
But, that varies a lot based on age. Hire some kid in their early '20s, and it will be rather less than $500, and good luck getting a decent plan for someone around 50 for less than a grand a month.
Also, companies will only pay part of the health insurance cost. My company does pay the full cost of the insurance for the worker, for example, but we don't pay anything towards insurance for their dependents. and while the insurance that my company hands out isn't exactly great, there are way shittier health plans available.
Yeah, I'm not getting where you are seeing the $0.10/hr. Maybe you mean if the employer just organizes the health insurance, and makes the employees actually do all the paying for it? but in that case, there's really no point in the employer offering health insurance at all, Now that the ACA allows people with pre-existing conditions to buy health insurance, the value that an employer provides by paying for your health insurance (rather, say, than just giving you the money and letting you get your own insurance) is that if your employer pays, it comes out pre-tax, which is huge.
It's hard to turn in to a hourly cost, because the coverage is binary; an employee works enough hours to be covered or not, and the cost of health insurance for the worker depends mostly on the worker's age, not on how much they work.
Of course, we're talking usually like $500 or so a month, varying dramatically on age and quality of the plan, so in no case is it gonna be anywhere near $0.10 per hour.
Workers comp can usually be broken down to a per-hour cost; and for, say, an underpaid computer nerd, $0.10 per hour is a minimally realistic workers comp cost, so maybe that's what parent was talking about.
ACA is 0.10 an hour. If the worker works long enough s/he apply for Medicare. If you want you can offer additional benefits. This is obviously not true for full time employees.
> ACA is 0.10 an hour. If the worker works long enough s/he apply for Medicare. If you want you can offer additional benefits. This is obviously not true for full time employees.
Again, I don't think this is true, at least not from an employer's perspective. The prices I am familiar with are about the same through an affordable care act exchange, and the (monthly) prices are the same for hourly and exempt employees.
I... know very little about medicare, but I was under the impression that you had to be very poor to qualify, and that it didn't have a lot to do with how much you worked. It's possible that there's a government program for the poor that will give you health insurance for $0.10 an hour, but as far as I know, that's not something available to employers.
I am happy to see Eden following the path of BlueCrew and switching to a W2 model.
This is the future of the on-demand economy.
Customers should be aware the hiring a misclassified 1099 worker is illegal and risky
We all agree that staffing agencies classify workers as employees. And that's the right thing to do.
The focus is on the on-demand economy. Very few on-demand platform decided to go for the w2 route instead of the 1099 model.
I might be wrong, but I can think of 3 in total
No offense, but the use of "on-demand economy" appears to be little more than marketing spin. Lots of established temp agencies can accommodate companies with short-term needs and deliver warm bodies quickly.
No offense at all. I am obviously biased. If this was true though, our customers would have not left traditional agencies for us.
They all told us they did it for the same reasons: faster and easier to use.
The way we manage our workforce is also fundamentally different and better for the workers ;)
If you specify what kind of metrics you are looking for, happy to provide them. Ping me at [email protected]
In general, 1099 are not covered by worker's comp and end up paying 7% more taxes.
At a traditional staffing agency, a worker is asked to show-up in the office on Monday and declare her/his availability for the week. He is then called an pushed to a shift. Often they are never called.
Opposite to them, we leave complete freedom to workers and allow them to set their own schedule
As a co-founder of BlueCrew, I think the one of the biggest flaws of traditional staffing agencies is considering a person a "Warm Body". I believe everyone fits in a job somewhere, Our goal is to help connect these perfect employer-employee relationships.
WoNoLo is a great company, but it's a 1099 model.
It is difficult to justify how a low complexity worker can be a contractor. To be a contractor you need to have done a personal investment, cannot be trained and cannot be working on a shift.
This exposes both the customer and the employee to a high level of risks. The employee does not have the needed insurance coverage. The customer is at risk of worker's misclassification, fines and costly claims.
Compared to a traditional staffing agency, we have lower costs of operations.
We showed our product to a quite a few people that worked ad ManPower and told us that we are faster, provide a better interface/experience. I hope they are right :)
