> Not sure if that article is really about shifting risks from corporates to workers and weakening their protections.
Jacobin articles are rarely 'about' anything. Their primary mode of reasoning is like folk etymology on a discourse level. There's usually a fair amount of factual evidence included, but it's forced through a narrative -- that's there for the sake of appearing novel -- into a conclusion that doesn't logically follow from anything presented.
(I haven't read this one yet, but if it's anything like Against Chairs[1], my criticism should apply. Admittedly I'm doing the same thing in this comment that I'm criticizing Jacobin for doing.)
Jacobin articles are rarely 'about' anything. Their primary mode of reasoning is like folk etymology on a discourse level. There's usually a fair amount of factual evidence included, but it's forced through a narrative -- that's there for the sake of appearing novel -- into a conclusion that doesn't logically follow from anything presented.
(I haven't read this one yet, but if it's anything like Against Chairs[1], my criticism should apply. Admittedly I'm doing the same thing in this comment that I'm criticizing Jacobin for doing.)
[1] https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/04/against-chairs/