California is cracking down on the gig economy • Hacker News Board

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#211

Post by esturk » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 5:27 PM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #125

This last year, I drove for GrubHub for about 6 months in order to pay rent while trying to build a business as well as do web development contract work(I'm now employed full time). The whole time, I was active in various gig economy subreddits. There are some people out there who only want to drive for companies like GrubHub, but most of the drivers are people who already have jobs and are using the gig as supplemen…

I feel like your argument is biased towards the contractor argument probably caused by your own experiences. Have you considered the opposite side where there are people who _only_ wants to be a full time employee so there's stability in their lives?

Its hard to take your words that _most_ people want it without anything backing.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#212

Post by ddffre » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 5:32 PM UTC

Then what's the point if gig economy?

With these laws it won't be profitable for those companies to run their business.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#213

Post by lisper » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 5:33 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #207

lisper wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> insurance typically has a negative expected value Only if you ignore externalities, like uninsured permanently disabled people begging on the streets or starving to death.

That's not an externality. The person starving to death is the same person who didn't buy insurance. What you're getting at is that there is a reason people buy insurance anyway -- the peace of mind that that won't happen to you, as I mentioned. Because a million dollars in claims money even if you have to multiply it by the only 2% probability of that happening is worth more to you than the $20,000 in guaranteed pre…

> That's not an externality. The person starving to death is the same person who didn't buy insurance.

It is an externality. Maybe you don't mind having the streets of your town full of homeless people, but I do. In fact, I mind it very much. When someone ends up on the street, that makes my life less pleasant even though I'm not the one who was uninsured.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#214

Post by CydeWeys » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 5:34 PM UTC

sidlls wrote: post #210

CydeWeys wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most B2B contracting arrangements, the contractors are full-time employees of the contracting firm, and get their benefits from that company. (This was my first job out of college.)

Yes; I've done this myself. It's also not uncommon for individuals to contract themselves out through a shell corporation. The test as indicated in the article doesn't say anything about this kind of B2B arrangement, though. Why wouldn't this law apply to individuals in this case?

The law is about classifying individual contractors as employees. It's not going to re-classify employees of one company as employees of another.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#215

Post by didibus » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 5:34 PM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #38

Just charge drivers $1/day to use the platform and now they aren't contractors, they're customers.

Actually, this might happen in the future. You could totally see it as, any independent person who want to offer rides as a service might need a platform for it. And if Uber offers itself more as a marketplace, this could make sense. Pay Uber a fixed price to be on the app, or have them take a percentage, and be routed through calls, but set your own prices for the rides.

I'm surprised there isn't an Uber like app that operates this way yet actually.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#216

Post by mseidl » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 5:34 PM UTC

ddffre wrote: post #212

Then what's the point if gig economy? With these laws it won't be profitable for those companies to run their business.

Well Uber has not been profitable for 10 years. So, changing the laws will make it worse. But uber is horrible anyway.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#217

Post by sidlls » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 5:37 PM UTC

0xffff2 wrote: post #185

biesnecker wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you in the Bay Area though? If you are, then the people applying may well not be able to afford living without Bay Area salaries.

That's kind of the point, right? We in the bay area have basically priced ourselves out of the remote work market because that "making ends meet" salary here is much higher than practically anywhere else in the world.

Alternatively, companies are able to keep a larger share of the value generated by labor by exploiting differences in living conditions and standards of living (usually unfavorable conditions/standards).

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#218

Post by morpheuskafka » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 5:39 PM UTC

cycomanic wrote: post #82

brianchu wrote: post #31

I'm coming to the view that gig workers are neither employees nor independent contractors. Employees don't get to unilaterally set their own hours, and contractors don't get prices unilaterally dictated to them or barred from their profession if their rating falls too low. All this regulatory squabbling is arguing over whether a square peg fits a round hole or fits a triangular hole. We need a third classification fo…

Just because somethin has a benefit to the consumer does not mean we should keep it a viable business model, otherwise we should also allow slave labor. Moreover, while there might be an immediate benefit to consumers, as the article notes it might as well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone. The only people who are really benefiting are the large shareholders.

Slavery deprives someone of a basic human freedom. A free market is the exact opposite of that.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#219

Post by JMTQp8lwXL » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 5:39 PM UTC

CryptoPunk wrote: post #80

The people I see working gig economy jobs seem to come from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, ranging from people with new Teslas to those who look like they are on the margins of society. With respect to the latter, these are people who I don't see in any other occupation. I assume the reason they work these jobs is that they cannot get traditional jobs which generally have higher barriers-to-entry due to higher gu…

I've never been picked up by a Tesla when requesting Uber or Lyft rides.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#220

Post by cheerlessbog » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 5:40 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #207

lisper wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> insurance typically has a negative expected value Only if you ignore externalities, like uninsured permanently disabled people begging on the streets or starving to death.

That's not an externality. The person starving to death is the same person who didn't buy insurance. What you're getting at is that there is a reason people buy insurance anyway -- the peace of mind that that won't happen to you, as I mentioned. Because a million dollars in claims money even if you have to multiply it by the only 2% probability of that happening is worth more to you than the $20,000 in guaranteed pre…

It would be a harsh society indeed that didn't protect against some poor choices. You got injured and your insurance lapsed because you forgot to pay it/did not realize you should have it/didn't have the money/got ripped off/made a bad decision/the check was lost in the mail? Starve and die? I've traveled in countries that can be like that and its not a happy place to live. Medieval you might say.