This is what happens when government gets too big and the labor unions are mandated by law.
We've seen over the last few months what a smaller government looks like. Moving to a "user pays for everything" model means less take home wages with a flow on effect of less money for startups.
Labor unions are not mandated by law and for all intents and purposes irrelevant for 99.9% of startups. They do serve an incredibly valuable part of society being the only counterweight to large corporations who are easily able to buy their way into politics.
I don't know much about Australian government, but how is a "user pays for everything" model different from taxation? In your state, doesn't a user still pay for a service through taxation, whether an income tax (less take home wages), sales tax (less money for startups) or some other tax?
Labor jobs pay $16/hour minimum. There is heavy regulations and taxes on businesses. With a company over a certain amount of employees, firing an employee ends up being a court case with the head of the labor union.
Startups can't thrive in an environment like this, which is why we don't see VC firms flocking there. It's no coincidence that they are flocking to the US.
"They do serve an incredibly valuable part of society being the only counterweight to large corporations who are easily able to buy their way into politics."
Labor unions are just as bad as corporations. They destroyed GM in the US and continue to create waste in many other industries (teacher unions creating an environment where bad teachers can't be fired).
It's not a shock to me that I was down voted. The leftists here on HN love unions.
BTW, I personally don't like unions. I think they were needed in the past, but now they are just trying to find a reason to exist.
If there is a group of people who need those benefits they can pool money by themselves and provide a safety net for members of that group.
Yes, but would it be as effective as a universal scheme? Also, there is a chicken and egg situation, whereby only people with the advantage of enough wealth to join in the voluntary scheme could access a safety net, biasing against people who do not have advantage but do have the ability to contribute.
> Why should a startup founder be able to bet on someone else's money?
Because we're all linked by, and benefit from, our societal connections and as a society we've collectively decided that it's the best way forward.
---
Edit: grammar
[1]: Assuming an uncorrupted system. Else, all systems are equally bad.
Please don't spread FUD.