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

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#231

Post by username444 » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 6:07 PM UTC

momokoko wrote: post #206

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When anyone does the math with these gig jobs, they leave out risk. That's the difference. GrubHub is pushing the risk of long term disability, and other things like unemployment due to business slowdown, entirely onto you. As well as other risks they are free from if you are not an employee. It's generally quite the opposite. It's employer regulations hiding the cost of insurance from you. There is nothing stoppin…

I'm sorry, but this all just sounds like free market ideology. We are saying the same thing. You just think someone needs to be at fault and there are good guys vs bad guys. I'm talking to an individual. Please refer the comment I was replying to. I'm not trying to make generalized ideological debates about the gig economy or taxation or any other of the typically religious arguments people shout at each other about…

I think you're missing the point as well, and that may be a generational difference.

You value security and loyalty, because that's what your generation was raised with.

My generation has no delusions of job security. It does not and will not exist in our future. We value independence and freedom, and the opportunity to pursue our careers.

I've done contract work my entire life and wouldn't have it any other way. I do not want to be tied to a company. I earn much, much work working independently.

My insurance is my savings account. My insurance is my adaptability. My insurance is my skillset.

Your reply indicates that you think that has something to do with idealism, and it doesn't. We want to do work, get paid for it, and fuck off to the next thing.

You don't have to agree with it, just don't participate in it if you don't. But don't try to get in the way of other people doing what they want because you don't understand it.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#232

Post by will4274 » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 6:08 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.

Parent is suggesting a new regulatory category. Even if we accept that the gig economy is detrimental overall today, in theory this new regulation would bring it up to a different point. I'm not sure how you can conclude that it's "detrimental overall" without better defining the regulation. That is, I'm not sure your comment really addresses parent's comment.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#233

Post by elcinr » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 6:08 PM UTC

momokoko wrote: post #206

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When anyone does the math with these gig jobs, they leave out risk. That's the difference. GrubHub is pushing the risk of long term disability, and other things like unemployment due to business slowdown, entirely onto you. As well as other risks they are free from if you are not an employee. It's generally quite the opposite. It's employer regulations hiding the cost of insurance from you. There is nothing stoppin…

I'm sorry, but this all just sounds like free market ideology. We are saying the same thing. You just think someone needs to be at fault and there are good guys vs bad guys. I'm talking to an individual. Please refer the comment I was replying to. I'm not trying to make generalized ideological debates about the gig economy or taxation or any other of the typically religious arguments people shout at each other about…

Their comment was fine. Relax. They discussed why it actually might be more risky from an individual's perspective to be an employee than a contractor.

In my opinion anyway the individual perspective is a moot point. Unless there's some serious shortage of access to information the main consideration should be the benefit to society as a whole and not just a single company. How much more stable will a business and its impact on commerce be if it does provide reduced-premium insurance is the more important question to ask.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#234

Post by welly » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 6:10 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #64

kartan wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers. I am all for ridesharing. But Uber and Lyft, as an example, has nothing to do with that concept. It is not like your Uber driver was coincidentally going to the exact place that you were going. Ridesharing, as understood before the gig economy, was someone in the company realizing that there we…

Except we never called that "ridesharing". It was just "carpooling". As much as I hate the term ridesharing, since it doesn't actually describe what these companies and drivers do, it's not like it was a widely-used term that's been redefined over the past decade.

If the rest of us continue to incorrectly call Uber etc. "ridesharing" then that definition will soon become set in stone. Can we not just call them exactly what they are? Which is taxis. By every definition, they are taxis.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#235

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 6:10 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #213

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's the kind of thinking that leads to old policies like New York City rounding up all the homeless and putting them on a bus with a mandatory one way ticket to Pennsylvania.

The person taking the brunt of the hardship is clearly the person suffering it and not the person with the misfortune of having to observe them, and they also have the best incentive to take steps to prevent that from happening. Forcing choices on them doesn't fix it. Maybe it makes it so you don't have to look at them, but if the net result is sufficiently worse that they wouldn't have chosen it given the choice, you're not actually helping them, you're just making the suffering less visible.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#236

Post by will4274 » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 6:11 PM UTC

kartan wrote: post #49

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…

> Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers. I am all for ridesharing. But Uber and Lyft, as an example, has nothing to do with that concept. It is not like your Uber driver was coincidentally going to the exact place that you were going. Ridesharing, as understood before the gig economy, was someone in the company realizing that there we…

Uber offers ride-sharing services (Uber Pool) and Taxi services. As a frequent Pool rider, I'm not sure what else you would call it besides ride-sharing - the three of us taking the Pool don't own cars and wouldn't have otherwise gotten in touch with each other. Uber provides a car, a driver, and route coordination for a price and the three of us share the ride.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#237

Post by momokoko » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 6:17 PM UTC

username444 wrote: post #231

momokoko wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but this all just sounds like free market ideology. We are saying the same thing. You just think someone needs to be at fault and there are good guys vs bad guys. I'm talking to an individual. Please refer the comment I was replying to. I'm not trying to make generalized ideological debates about the gig economy or taxation or any other of the typically religious arguments people shout at each other about…

I think you're missing the point as well, and that may be a generational difference. You value security and loyalty, because that's what your generation was raised with. My generation has no delusions of job security. It does not and will not exist in our future. We value independence and freedom, and the opportunity to pursue our careers. I've done contract work my entire life and wouldn't have it any other way. I d…

No. The comment was off topic.

I was replying to an individual. And then someone decided to add a reply to my comment with typical internet free market talking points. I was not discussing these debated to death boring religious debates about government and taxation. I was talking to an individual. Please refer to the comment I was originally replying to for context.

For an individual, the loss of worker compensation is a very very significant thing to consider. Driving is a very dangerous job. Most police officer deaths each year are from automobile accidents. Whether they should make that choice, or if a society should allow it, was absolutely nowhere in any way at all in my comment. Please reread my comment as it appears you seem to have missed that.

If you want to rehash the same typical talking points we've all heard 10,000 times, please do it in a different thread. I have a very difficult time seeing how repeating things that have been said so many times does anything but waste all of our time here.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#238

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 6:17 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #229

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point you're making is that "starving" is an exaggeration. Which is true -- we have many charities and need-based assistance programs that have nothing to do with employers or insurance, so people don't typically starve in the US and the worst case from not having insurance is actually less bad than the exaggeration of the other poster.

> people don't typically starve in the US That doesn't make the cost of feeding people who can't afford food any less of an externality.

It does if the charities are no less efficient and no more subject to fraud than the insurance would have been.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#239

Post by jashmatthews » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 6:22 PM UTC

lbotos wrote: post #203

momokoko wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really get confused about this. I wonder if it is because I'm a bit older. Plenty of part time employment is like that. For example, many people that work retail or service part time have very flexible schedules. They typically have an availability chart and then if they need a day off last minute, they are often required to find someone else to cover for them. The reality is that the contractor part of this is to…

> Plenty of part time employment is like that. For example, many people that work retail or service part time have very flexible schedules. They typically have an availability chart and then if they need a day off last minute, they are often required to find someone else to cover for them. I think you are missing a large part of it. The "gig" economy is "on-demand" labor. There is no schedule to coordinate at the "wo…

This is exactly what casual/zero hours job contracts are for in the UK and other common law countries. Treating casual employees as contractors bollocks in a large part of the work.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#240

Post by jquery » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 6:22 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #106

cycomanic wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. How could you compare someone voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor? > well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone. I don't buy it. The math that claims that these designations cost taxpayers is naive. As though applying additio…

I agree. As someone who likes the idea of being able to drive for Uber for spare cash, I'm not very happy with the heavy-handed way California likes to regulate its economy. Many of these gig economy workers will end up simply relying on the government or foregoing the cash altogether if gigs are taken away.