Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Cathy's avatar

The portable benefits movement is a genuine improvement and the state-level momentum is real. But it's worth naming what it is: a workaround for a structurally broken system rather than a fix to the structure itself.

The reason 30 million independent workers lack benefits isn't primarily a legal classification problem — it's that benefits are tied to employment at all. The 1954 tax code decision that made employer-sponsored benefits tax-exempt created the entire architecture that portable benefits are now trying to patch. Workers are still dependent on someone — employer or client — contributing to their account. Coverage still isn't truly universal.

The deeper fix is severing the link between employment and coverage entirely. Coverage that follows the person regardless of employment status — W-2, 1099, sole proprietor, caregiver, between jobs — doesn't need a portable benefits framework because it was never attached to a job in the first place.

That's the architecture the Burned at Both Ends — B@BE — framework is built around. burnedatbothends.org — genuinely curious whether you see portable benefits as a bridge to that structural fix or as a destination in itself.

No posts

Ready for more?