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

California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 119 posts

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#41

Post by Ididntdothis »

gerbilly wrote: post #21
lugg wrote: post #3

Good. People forget the past all too easily. It took a lot to get us the protections we have today. Giving them up so easily is a mistake. For those thinking this is overreach and stifling innovation you need to look back at history and realise the same thing could be said about many commonplace workers rights that you take for granted now.

The fact that you're bing down voted is beyond me. My wife describes engineers as 'smartdumb'. We're super smart at figuring out technical solutions that enable things like social media, ridesharing and short term rentals. But we're either willfully ignorant or just plain dumb about the second order effects on society. And you know what you call it when people discuss the social good? Politics. That very thing that c…

On the Gervais principle most engineers are somewhere between the clueless and the losers. This explains a lot of the behavior.

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#42

Post by false-mirror »

BaronSamedi wrote: post #17
maehwasu wrote: post #2

So "feudalism" = "things I think are bad?" The gig economy has many, many downsides, but those downsides don't share much at all in common with feudalism, even by analogy. If we let all words deteriorate to mean simply "good" or "bad" (with gradations of good or badness), we're barely communicating.

We could even take an additional step on the path of honest communication and instead of "good" and "bad", say "things I like" and "things I dislike".

Such a chillingly casual disregard for morality and ethics.

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#43

Post by simias »

mfer wrote: post #27
BaronSamedi wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could even take an additional step on the path of honest communication and instead of "good" and "bad", say "things I like" and "things I dislike".

Who decides what's good or bad? Who decides who decides? Where is the depth of knowledge, logic, and reason behind that? When it comes to good and bad we often lack these things and if we did I would wager we are not on the same page. "things I like" and "things I dislike" are far more honest and genuine.

How do you think a society could functions without a minimal set of shared values? Stuff like "killing each other is not super nice" and similar? Aren't values about "good" and "bad"?

Unless you're talking from a purely nihilistic viewpoint which might be rational to some extent but not really productive. "Nothing matter, nothing is wrong, nothing is right, stuff just happens". Okay but where do we go from there?

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#44

Post by weberc2 »

Retric wrote: post #22
maehwasu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're inadvertently making precisely my original point: "exploitation" and "bad thing" are incredibly general properties that exist in many systems, and it's not useful or insightful to compare them to feudalism.

If someone called a haircut feudalistic because it was bad then that’s dumbing down words to just good or bad. Calling a type of employment relationship feudalistic because of the amount of power the employer has is at least somewhat descriptive.

Only in that it’s a “bad” employment relationship.

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#45

Post by heymijo »

maehwasu wrote: post #2

So "feudalism" = "things I think are bad?" The gig economy has many, many downsides, but those downsides don't share much at all in common with feudalism, even by analogy. If we let all words deteriorate to mean simply "good" or "bad" (with gradations of good or badness), we're barely communicating.

> Feudalism: the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection.

Large power imbalance between the workers and those with means? Check. Not in use since Medieval times and thus an analogy unlikely to be confused? Check

An analogy, by definition, only has to bear partial resemblance to the thing being compared. The power imbalance in feudalism and the gig economy is clear.

So no, feudalism does not mean "things I think are bad".

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#46

Post by weberc2 »

maehwasu wrote: post #2

So "feudalism" = "things I think are bad?" The gig economy has many, many downsides, but those downsides don't share much at all in common with feudalism, even by analogy. If we let all words deteriorate to mean simply "good" or "bad" (with gradations of good or badness), we're barely communicating.

Feudalism is joining the esteemed ranks of now-meaningless words like “violence”, “cancer”, “white supremacy”, and “patriarchy”.

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#47

Post by ilaksh »

gerbilly wrote: post #21
lugg wrote: post #3

Good. People forget the past all too easily. It took a lot to get us the protections we have today. Giving them up so easily is a mistake. For those thinking this is overreach and stifling innovation you need to look back at history and realise the same thing could be said about many commonplace workers rights that you take for granted now.

The fact that you're bing down voted is beyond me. My wife describes engineers as 'smartdumb'. We're super smart at figuring out technical solutions that enable things like social media, ridesharing and short term rentals. But we're either willfully ignorant or just plain dumb about the second order effects on society. And you know what you call it when people discuss the social good? Politics. That very thing that c…

I don't really think that engineers can't figure out or see the second order effects of apps like Uber or DoorDash. Its very clear. Large numbers of people are operating without benefits.

What I think is happening as far as the downvotes is not dependent on the person's field but rather their class or group identification as well as a certain portion of people who are actually worried about maintaining the 'independent' part of this stuff (though that is misguided for things like Uber).

Some people don't understand the perspective or plight of gig workers because they identify as being part of a different segment of society, which precludes them from taking on that other perspective.

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#48

Post by aphextim »

lexapro wrote: post #7
maehwasu wrote: post #2

So "feudalism" = "things I think are bad?" The gig economy has many, many downsides, but those downsides don't share much at all in common with feudalism, even by analogy. If we let all words deteriorate to mean simply "good" or "bad" (with gradations of good or badness), we're barely communicating.

While it doesn't fit a strict definition of "feudalism", large parts of the gig economy are very exploitative, which is also a characteristic of feudalism. And feudalism is generally regarded as a bad thing.

>While it doesn't fit a strict definition of "feudalism", large parts of the gig economy are very exploitative, which is also a characteristic of feudalism. And feudalism is generally regarded as a bad thing.

While it doesn't fit a strict definition of "communism", large parts of socialism are very exploitative, which is also a characteristic of communism. And communism is generally regarded as a bad thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#49

Post by zaroth »

js8 wrote: post #38
zaroth wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a system where it works more like the way you are suggesting -- it's called communism. The key reason why capitalism isn't "Feudalism 2.0" is because companies compete in a marketplace against each other, and there is freedom of mobility between employees across those companies. So maybe you could say that anti-trust law is a key component to ensure that your analogy is false.

I think you misunderstood my argument. I am not defending a particular system (and almost certainly not communism). I am pointing out that same arguments used to defend the privileges of capitalists were used to defend feudal privileges. The feudal lords also competed with each other. The freedom of mobility is not relevant if your only choice is just another feudal lord.

> But the arguments used to justify the power of capital owners over the operations (and profit distribution) in the company are in principle the same as those used to defend feudal lordship.

It's a neat metaphor in a storybook sort of way, which is why it seems like you are making a political point and not a economic argument.

> The freedom of mobility is not relevant if your only choice is just another feudal lord.

There are ~30 million small businesses in the US, anyone can start one, and many people do. Anyone cannot decide to become a feudal lord; it is a position taken through force and violence and maintained at the tip of a spear.

> In the political domain, humans eventually wisened up and decided ... I think this will eventually happen to founders in capitalism too.

I think capitalism was the "wisened up" part after the prior attempts which don't allow an entrepreneur to take a new idea, bring it into the world, and own the result for themselves. Well, aside from the ~50% which goes to taxes.

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#50

Post by weberc2 »

mkane848 wrote: post #28
gerbilly wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you're bing down voted is beyond me. My wife describes engineers as 'smartdumb'. We're super smart at figuring out technical solutions that enable things like social media, ridesharing and short term rentals. But we're either willfully ignorant or just plain dumb about the second order effects on society. And you know what you call it when people discuss the social good? Politics. That very thing that c…

Seeing people say things like "Simple competition sorts it out" as if any complex problem can be answered like that. We should really know better, given our field. Also interesting that basically anyone saying anything mildly critical of capitalism is getting downvoted without much response

I’m open to thoughtful, constructive criticisms of capitalism. Mostly what I see is “capitalism allows for some to slip through the cracks, so let’s burn it all to the ground and start over with system that has only ever failed catastrophically (or in the words of its proponents, ‘has never truly been tried before’)”.
Post reply on HN