Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

701–710 of 754 posts

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#701

Post by jonfw »

EpicEng wrote: post #651
jonfw wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> payroll taxes don't fund those It's kind of silly to make the distinction between which taxes fund which programs. It's completely arbitrary. Dollar bills are dollar bills

But for the fact that those dollars literally do not pay for roads and, when roads need to be built, those dollars will not be appropriated to do so. Other than that you're right of course, totally silly, what was I thinking.

This is like if I portion out my income and say "money from gig A goes to bills, money from gig B goes to savings"

At the end of the day if bills get bigger I can always pull money from gig B because I own the income stream. Just because I can currently accurately apply these arbitrary labels doesn't mean those labels aren't arbitrary, and it doesn't dictate what I will do with that money in the future.

It would be a bad idea for the owner of the income streams to actually make spending decisions based on the size of each income stream. You should always choose the expenditure with the highest expected value.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#702

Post by blackflame7000 »

fzeroracer wrote: post #693
blackflame7000 wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did people get this idea that every job must supply a living wage?

Why shouldn't every job supply a living wage? You realize what your proposing is a net societal negative, right? 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 a…

Because if I need someone to mow my lawn why do I need to support their entire way of life. Not all work is equal and not all work is worth that much. What you're espousing is participation trophy logic.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#703

Post by mvid »

mattmcknight wrote: post #614
monkbroc wrote: post #183

Is there any reason to believe the ride sharing companies won't reorganize their drivers using a similar model to what Amazon uses for their delivery drivers: contract to external firms that employ drivers so the parent entity is absolved of responsibility? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/05/us/amazon-delivery-driver...

So perhaps each Uber Driver could be given the tools to form their own LLC, where they are an employee of that LLC, and that LLC contracts with Uber and potentially other gig services. It could be completely automated for them.

Even if it is automated, that is an $800 out of pocket expense every year for LLC fees, and more complex accounting requirements. It's not worth the effort unless you are making significant money or are serious about your business

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#704

Post by notyourday »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #661
notyourday wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. It must be nice to sit in air conditioned office on $800 chair, sipping kombucha, looking at 2x 28" 4k monitors pontificating "Why would anyone want to be driving for uber?" Because for an Uber driver this job could be the best available. One needs to eat and put a roof over one's h…

I'm actually sitting on a wooden chair at a wobbly table in a space with no air conditioning, but that's beside the point. My original comment does have an air of privilege to it, and for that I apologize. It's my own frustration that we can't do better to people who's best option is something requiring the skill set of a job like rideshare driver. Stated in other (hopefully more fruitful) words, if you can work ride…

> They start at $13/hour and have none of the external costs of contract ridesharing. That could be more profitable to the worker, but I have not done the math.

There are not enough In-and-Out burger places to accomodate all the Uber and Lyft drivers.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#705

Post by radarthreat »

blackflame7000 wrote: post #702
fzeroracer wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn't every job supply a living wage? You realize what your proposing is a net societal negative, right? 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 a…

Because if I need someone to mow my lawn why do I need to support their entire way of life. Not all work is equal and not all work is worth that much. What you're espousing is participation trophy logic.

Good luck getting anyone to mow your lawn, then. Simple economics.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#707

Post by unksdfnaajhfjk »

subhobroto wrote: post #694
unksdfnaajhfjk wrote: post #688

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Yes, you make a good argument and that was one of the good arguments made to support the regulation that ties down the government. 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…

If our drug prices are higher than in other countries it can only be because of how things are regulated. Otherwise we could buy the same thing from their market for the cost of shipping.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#708

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

notyourday wrote: post #704
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually sitting on a wooden chair at a wobbly table in a space with no air conditioning, but that's beside the point. My original comment does have an air of privilege to it, and for that I apologize. It's my own frustration that we can't do better to people who's best option is something requiring the skill set of a job like rideshare driver. Stated in other (hopefully more fruitful) words, if you can work ride…

> They start at $13/hour and have none of the external costs of contract ridesharing. That could be more profitable to the worker, but I have not done the math. There are not enough In-and-Out burger places to accomodate all the Uber and Lyft drivers.

It's a single example. Generalize the comment, and you'll take away that there are many employers of low-skilled labor.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#709

Post by zaarn »

pishpash wrote: post #673
zaarn wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a crucial difference; ebay Sellers can pick their customers. They can perform the same sale outside ebay. Customers can pick who to buy an item from. Ebay doesn't take a cut of the sale either, they take a charge for displaying the item on their store page, which the vendor also has to advertise and design on their own.

Have you even used eBay? It is against the TOS to solicit or conduct a sale on eBay offline, to bypass eBay, and eBay absolutely takes a 10%+ cut off sales called the Final Value Fee. eBay also enforces how sellers use their platform including using incentives, rules, and feedback scores to show or not show listings or even kick them off. Similarly, Uber riders can reject a driver as can drivers reject a rider for an…

Atleast where i live, ebay offers the option to complete the sale of a product offline, and you're free to contact the seller and make a different deal on the product whichever way you like. Well, and sellers on ebay can still run their own store and advertise it on the product page (for which they are still fully responsible).

If Uber riders were able to pick the driver they wanted and drivers were able to design their own advertisement page the riders see as well as being able to negotiate with the rider directly without loosing the Uber's platform protection, I would agree.

The relationship between customer-seller is just much different than rider-ridee.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#710

Post by scardine »

Aeolun wrote: post #689
scardine wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, so in France you can't fire someone but can legally make his life miserable through constant relocation? Brutal...

I guess it’s more like in France, instead of being fired with no recourse, you can opt to be relocated instead (at least that’s what it works out to).

As I understood, once you hire someone in France the labor code makes it virtually impossible to terminate the contract.

In Brazil employers have to pay a fine if they fire a worker without a "fair cause" (~ 3.2% over the sum of all compensation paid to the employee while they worked for you), so the longer someone worked for you the more expensive it gets to fire them.

Post reply on HN