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

51–60 of 119 posts

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

#51

Post by Retric »

irishcoffee wrote: post #39
Retric wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

feu·dal·ism /ˈfyo͞odlˌizəm/ noun 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 (villeins or serfs) 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. Sure isn't even "somewhat…

That’s an incomplete definition.

“The classic definition, by François-Louis Ganshof (1944),[3] feudalism describes a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals and fiefs.[3]“. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

It included both economic and military relationships, but importantly: The granting of a landholding to a vassal did not relinquish the lord's property rights, but only the use of the lands and their income; the granting lord retained ultimate ownership of the fee and could, technically, recover the lands in case of disloyalty or death. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fief

Thus these relationships where in effect an extreme form of employment even among the nobility. Much like how joining the US Army has more obligations than going to work for Google.

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

#52

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#53

Post by krapp »

weberc2 wrote: post #46
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”.

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

All of those words have well-established and commonly understood meanings.

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

#54

Post by mrfusion »

neilwilson wrote: post #8

The way to reshape labour laws is to offer an alternative job defining the socially minimum acceptable job in a local area. Business then has to compete with that to attract labour. No other labour law required. Simple competition sorts it out. That is also has the advantage of being a geographically targeted federal automatic stabiliser that operates far more effectively than interest rate targeting via bank lending…

Or just do a UBI instead of giving people busy work.

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

#55

Post by 49531 »

nvahalik wrote: post #30
neilwilson wrote: post #8

The way to reshape labour laws is to offer an alternative job defining the socially minimum acceptable job in a local area. Business then has to compete with that to attract labour. No other labour law required. Simple competition sorts it out. That is also has the advantage of being a geographically targeted federal automatic stabiliser that operates far more effectively than interest rate targeting via bank lending…

> ends unemployment permanently and forever is just an added bonus. Until those businesses which cannot survive in this model go away so even the part time job they had won't be around anymore...

As a society, should we really tolerate businesses who can only exist via exploitation?

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

#56

Post by rpmisms »

mrfusion wrote: post #54
neilwilson wrote: post #8

The way to reshape labour laws is to offer an alternative job defining the socially minimum acceptable job in a local area. Business then has to compete with that to attract labour. No other labour law required. Simple competition sorts it out. That is also has the advantage of being a geographically targeted federal automatic stabiliser that operates far more effectively than interest rate targeting via bank lending…

Or just do a UBI instead of giving people busy work.

I have a few questions: - Where does the money for UBI come from? - How do you propose to deal with the sudden spike in rent prices that's almost exactly the UBI amount? - What do you do when welfare faring becomes socially acceptable?

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

#57

Post by simonh »

narag wrote: post #20
simonh wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still got nothing to do with actual feudalism, except that it's also 'bad'. Except for those people who like working in the gig economy and for whom it works very well.

It's still got nothing to do with actual feudalism... Yes it has. Feudalism was that exactly: all society, from bottom to top was based on individual asymetrical pacts between two parts, the vassal and the lord. This kind of relation existed between peasants and lords and between lesser and greater lords.

All employment contracts are asymmetrical. Almost all contracts are asymmetrical. The defining features that make feudalism different from any other master/servant or employer/employee relationship are completely different from the gig economy and the gig economy oppresses people in completely different ways.

For example a gig economy employee can withdraw their labour at any time; can choose how much or how little they work (sometimes within some very wide bounds); can often choose where they work; can change from one employer to another and back again freely; in some cases can choose to only work at certain times and locations that have better compensation.

Yes of course there are disadvantages and maybe those should be regulated, and maybe in some cases the relationship is abusive by employers, but the above doesn't sound anything remotely like feudalism to anyone who has even the most basic knowledge about feudalism.

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

#58

Post by corebit »

ilaksh wrote: post #47
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…

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 'independe…

"Large numbers of people are operating without benefits."

You're attributing lack of benefits to work situations and employement agreements instead of unjust government distortion in markets and inefficient regulation.

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

#59

Post by mcrocop309 »

kobbe wrote: post #34
linuxftw wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That leads to less full-time employees. People will get their hours cut. Maybe we need to consider someone who works more than 15 hours a week full time. Or perhaps the benefits scale for employees based on number of hours worked.

It works in every other country...

Depends what you mean by 'it works'. In 2016 the US had 2000 people becoming millionaires every day. It depends what your goals are. If you want to rest, maybe go to France.

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

#60

Post by zwkrt »

rpmisms wrote: post #56
mrfusion wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just do a UBI instead of giving people busy work.

I have a few questions: - Where does the money for UBI come from? - How do you propose to deal with the sudden spike in rent prices that's almost exactly the UBI amount? - What do you do when welfare faring becomes socially acceptable?

Welfaring should be socially acceptable. Why should people have no choice other than to work?
Post reply on HN