691–700 of 754 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I meant profitable to Uber.
I highly doubt this is accurate. There's no reason why drivers can't maintain the same hours but still be considered an employee. I would love to be the health insurance provider getting Uber as a client. I'd be freaking rich on premiums.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it seems like an apathetic kind of want. There are degrees imo; if the people truly wanted something they would exert more effort than this showing. As it stands people may say they want it in polls but won't even vote for politicians that will make it a reality.
you have stories in the US of people dying from lack of access to insulin or rationing insulin.I wouldn't question that they "truly wanted" to live. but political organizing in the US around healthcare and other social benefits seems to pale in comparison to European countries. to say nothing of how low voter participation is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where I live the gig works make about or a little less than the minimum wage after expenses for vehicles. This doesn't include saving for retirement, healthcare, workmans comp, disability insurance, or a bunch of other things. Basically, even if healthcare were taken care of the amount they make would not be a living wage.
Where did people get this idea that every job must supply a living wage?
If a person has X amount in their savings and their job is not a living wage, then by definition they are likely going to have to rely on their savings to make up the wage differences. This is kind of a bad thing for capitalistic-based societies because you need people to consume, and if you have a large amount of people unable to consume then that negatively impacts the free market.
It's also bad because it places stress on other parts of society. No healthcare means when you eventually get sick or injured the hospital has to take on those costs, which means people pay more while destroying the lives of said injured or sick person.
People will have to make up the wage differential somehow, which also means that underclass of workers is more easily exploitable and/or pushed into illegal behaviors in order to survive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The way to protect workers is to shift the burden of health care and other costly benefits onto the government, supported by taxes Yes, it's clear that our prosperity hinges on how quickly we decouple health care from our employers. Employers don't want to be in the business of providing healthcare to their employees and its painfully obvious. I just don't understand why smart people think it's a good idea for anyo…
> The value the government brings here is extreme negotiating ability with the private insurance providers that individual citizens lack. This is not good, it distorts the market too much. Look at the negotiating power Spotify and Pandora have over musicians. Pandora negotiates rock-bottom prices with musicians on behalf of its consumers and the consumers think it's great because low prices. Long-term you've decrease…
However, when I see people being unable to afford medication or losing a significant amount of their wealth to afford medication, I start to have second thoughts.
It seems to me, that in a developed and advanced society, one ought to be able to live a quality and comfortable life enabling them to contribute to the good of society as a whole.
Drug prices in the U.S. are at a completely different level compared to any other developed nation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the government has "extreme negotiating ability" that citizens lack, then why does it continue to allow price gouging on drugs? Because regulations have been put in place to disallow the U.S. government from negotiating with pharma companies on drug pricing. The regulations were put in with good intentions (and some healthy doses of lobbying) in ensuring pharma companies would have financial incentives to carry…
If the regs were put in place due to "good intentions", and a "healthy[sic] dose of lobbying", then functionally this "negotiating ability" does not exist, because the government is not acting in the best interest of consumers, nor does it currently have the capability: its hands are tied.
If you have a point to make instead, say it.
I don't know what you're thinking but it feels like you seem to believe that only direct actions have effect.
That's not true. Indirect actions have effect too.
Just because the government's hands are tied in drug pricing does not mean the drug companies can charge the government whatever they want (like they can charge you or I).
For one, it has sheer size and it's pretty powerful overall.
It will take an extremely risk seeking drug company to try and exploit the government and drug companies are extremely risk averse.
Let me give another example - if you interviewed for a front end job this week at either of the coasts and refused to negotiate or name a number, most companies, if not all, would still offer a six figure number because that's the market. I WOULD be surprised if anyone offered you a minimum wage even if you were actually willing to take it!
Another example - say you are driving properly on the freeway following all rules like a perfect citizen and a cop car drives by - in general you're likely to take notice of that and be more careful in the way you drive even if the cop car in no way signalled to you or otherwise expressed any interest. Even if you knew this cop was not allowed to pull you over, you still would modify your behavior. In general for the better.
Compare your change in response to all other cars driving by you - one even might have flashed its lights at you and you showed them your middle finger. You probably wont do that to this specific car though.
Or if you went to an fancy event where the organizers explicitly asked you not to bring any gifts because they knew you were going through a tough time but you saw everyone else bring in expensive gifts, you would probably go out and try and get something reasonable, despite being explicity directed otherwise.
Just because one does not actively signal, or might even be obstructed from signalling, does not mean there is a complete lack of signal.
Drug companies have more to gain from keeping the government happy than making it unhappy.
To that end, they are willing to forgo some profit.
They dont have any reason to do so for you or I.
We are at a natural disadvantage: If you needed drug "GiveLife" to not die tomorrow, you would probably give up a significant amount of your worth or even go into debt to pay for GiveLife.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As well as laws like this that recognize the reality of the employment relationship, making these jobs decent requires: - unionization and industry bargaining to get decent wages and conditions - quality social welfare systems (including universal healthcare) so that people aren't afraid of poverty if they get fired/quit/change jobs I've always wondered why there isn't more of an appetite for Medicare for All and uni…
> How many people would like to do a startup but don't because they'd have no health insurance? How many people would like to do a startup but don't because they have no food or shelter? We don't really care because the costs of those things are manageable. The problem isn't that the government isn't paying for it. The problem is that it costs way too much.
You can't be serious. There is a housing affordability crisis throughout the first world.
Housing and food are rights. They should indeed be funded by government, through comprehensive social welfare, and in the case of housing, publicly owned housing.
All these people making Uber money on the side ... the whole thing was possible in part due to the low friction in (and also complete disregard for) the regulatory environment. I’m in NYC and honestly can’t figure out how to legally hire a studio assistant for a few hours a week without being at risk for any of a number of lawsuit vectors. So I just coil my own cables. And I don’t mentor people who want to learn some…
The way to protect workers is to shift the burden of health care and other costly benefits onto the government, supported by taxes. Then there is no risk to hiring a new employee beyond the wages you pay them. The US public does not want this, though, and the war of words over universal health care has led to incredibly deep entrenchment on the side of those opposed. All this despite the mountain of evidence from oth…
All that is needed is to undo employers providing health-care. The government could provide it, but it could also work akin to auto or home insurance where you the individual choose the company yourself. (I do think we need other reforms, principally price transparency, in order to manage the current cost problems w/ health care. There is no sane way for any person to evaluate anything about any insurance setup if they cannot gauge what it will cost them!)
Tax-based universal healthcare would accomplish this, but I do not think it is necessarily the only option. It does need to stop being attached to the employer. Losing my job should not cost me my healthcare, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How many people would like to do a startup but don't because they'd have no health insurance? How many people would like to do a startup but don't because they have no food or shelter? We don't really care because the costs of those things are manageable. The problem isn't that the government isn't paying for it. The problem is that it costs way too much.
> We don't really care because the costs of those things are manageable. You can't be serious. There is a housing affordability crisis throughout the first world. Housing and food are rights. They should indeed be funded by government, through comprehensive social welfare, and in the case of housing, publicly owned housing.
Only in the most dense urban areas. Not "throughout the first world."
> Housing and food are rights. They should indeed be funded by government, through comprehensive social welfare, and in the case of housing, publicly owned housing.
We do provide public housing and food for those who can't afford it, but the people who utilize it often aren't the ones creating startups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In America, you have to work until you die. The major thing the gig economy takes from people is health care. It's insanely expensive, and the Affordable Care Act is a terrible shamble of broken policy. I spent time outside of the US and came back to find health care worse than when I left it: https://fightthefuture.org/article/returning-to-america-and-... I have a friend who has been fighting brain cancer for over a…
This is why I don't understand why people take gig jobs. Think of the opportunity costs. First off, Uber drivers don't make that much. Then you have vehicle depreciation and maintenance costs. You need to carry an insurance rider that covers rideshare driving. You also need to pay for your own health care. When you add up all these expenses, plus the desire for a living wage, there is no way drivers can be making eno…
Rideshare insurance is an extra $10/month. Basically nothing.
I have to pay for my own healthcare when I have a regular job too. Buying on the exchange is pretty much the same thing with more choice.