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

91–100 of 119 posts

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

#91

Post by BaronSamedi »

simias wrote: post #40
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".

That's not the same thing. I like ice cream but it's bad for me. I don't like having to pay for it but it's probably good for society that ice cream makers are rewarded for their work, at least if I want to be able to eat more in the future. The world would be a literal paradise if doing thing we like and doing good things were always one and the same thing. I don't see how you can discuss morality and ethics without…

You are using the word "bad" equivocally. Bad as in "bad for your health" is one thing (no problem with that), bad as in "eating ice cream is morally bad" is quite another. What would the claim that eating ice is morally bad even mean?

All I'm suggesting is that we take care in our language and be up-front about subjectivity rather than mask it with objective-sounding reifications. This isn't an attack on morality nor its importance, rather it is an acknowledgment of the fact that such judgments are ultimately based on what we as individuals or as a society find acceptable or unacceptable (i.e., like or dislike). It is perfectly possible to have a strong sense of ethics without claiming that one's ethics are somehow objectively or empirically "true".

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

#92

Post by tomschlick »

krapp wrote: post #89
tomschlick wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forcing personal responsibility would be great; but I don't see that ever happening in this political climate. I foresee that situation playing out and then we will have legislators grandstanding that not doing something is "taking food out of children's mouths" or something similar. Over time that will lead to more and more programs being reinstated as no legislator will want to be seen not helping children/women/et…

>Generally when people ask for a handout from society, society wants to make sure that handout is being used for the things they said it would be used for. Welfare isn't people asking for a handout from society, it's a government program paid for with tax dollars. Society can complain about having to pay taxes into welfare programs (and often does) but it no more has the right to complain about what recipients do wit…

> Welfare isn't people asking for a handout from society, it's a government program paid for with tax dollars.

That's the definition of a handout. The government is the people, and giving someone money for nothing in return is a handout.

> but it no more has the right to complain about what recipients do with the money than employers do about their employees.

That's not comparable at all. With employers there is an exchange of services for money. With welfare there is no exchange. It's meant to help people on hard times, not be a long term income source.

> People already starve as a consequence to their actions

And I'm arguing the rate would be higher with UBI.

> sometimes because the restrictions imposed on welfare programs by society make it infeasible for people in need to actually participate in those programs

Which is obviously bad, but those restrictions are because of previous rampant abuse of the system. Without them, the system would likely no longer exist.

> no moralizing from the crowd that thinks poverty is sin and moral weakness, and that the poor need to be taught a hard lesson before being granted the privilege of a meal.

Yeah I never said that at all. I'm all in favor of helping people for a limited period when they are down, but the system is filled with abuse.

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

#93

Post by ericmcer »

throwaway_law wrote: post #76
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…

>No other labour law required. Simple competition sorts it out. We have seen how no labor laws combined with competition works, we get: 80 hour work weeks with no over time, no benefits, dangerous work conditions, and even exploitative child labor. There is legitimate use of contractors in lieu of employees, but UBER and gig economy as a whole are very hiring what are clearly employees, under the law, as contractors…

I think free market forces would work better if we had a culture that was less work centric. We have created a culture that places high value on work ethic, income, and personal achievement. Those are great things, but they are also great qualities for employers to exploit.

If we viewed overworking, putting in 60 hour weeks or doing risky work for more money as something unhealthy and greedy, rather than as commendable, free market forces might work better.

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

#94

Post by zwkrt »

tomschlick wrote: post #62
zwkrt wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because generally taking money from others which is meant to be for people on hard times, and giving nothing back in return is looked down upon. As it should be.

But all these sentiments are wrapped up in the way things are now. Why is welfare only meant for people who have fallen on hard times? I would think that working at McDonalds is a kind of vindictive welfare for people who have fallen on hard times, and UBI is a lot more humanitarian than making someone’s life a living hell because a large company has convinced us their employees aren’t indentured servants.

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

#95

Post by throwaway_law »

tomschlick wrote: post #90
throwaway_law wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its funny how the anti-UBI people always couch their arguments against UBI as in the best interest of irresponsible poor single mothers...as if providing a single mother of 4 with a basic income is in her own worst interest and will lead to irresponsible spending. Let me ask you: what do you do now when a mother of 4 doesn't qualify for SNAP or housing assistance, and her 1,2 or 3 jobs isn't enough to cover rent or p…

> Its funny how the anti-UBI people always couch their arguments against UBI as in the best interest of irresponsible poor single mothers That's done because those same cases will be used by legislators to justify reinstating these programs after UBI kills them. When they need to drum up public support they always tug at the heartstrings. > what do you do now when a mother of 4 doesn't qualify for SNAP or housing ass…

>Second, you seem to think removing SNAP, housing credits, and others and replacing it with $1k/mo would work.

No that is only one potential implementation of UBI, and generally the only one acknowledged by the Anti-UBI crowd (in a fear mongering sort of way).

>I'd argue most of those benefits are worth way more in many cases.

In fiscal year 2017, the average SNAP household received about $254 a month, or about $1 per meal. And my understanding with housing is 19 Million people are eligible/qualify, but only 25% get assistance, so its essentially a lottery. I'm fairly certain that 75% who get nothing would prefer the $1,000.

>The top 10% already pays 70.6% of US taxes and the top 1% pays 39% alone.

Those numbers are very consistent with the percentage of wealth owned by these groups. Except, the bottom 50% are paying 3x the % of wealth they own. Maybe the bottom 50% should pay 1% to match the % of wealth they own and then the top 10 and 1 % can pay 3x the % of wealth they own in taxes for a while.

>IMO, the government should never be taking more then 50% of someone's income.

That seems totally arbitrary, but maybe fair if we are talking about wages, the thing is the tax benefits to the rich that I highlight like inheritance/estate tax or capital gains taxes has nothing to do with work and wages...and its exactly why people like Warren Buffet pay less in taxes than his secretary and the rich have been able to transfer vast amounts of wealth and fortunes tax free. Again maybe we could experiment with tax wages at the capital gains rate and capital gains at the rate of wages for a little and see how that goes.

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

#96

Post by linuxftw »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #37
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.

The US is pretty much the only developed country without mandatory vacation time. This is a solved problem. Just look around how other countries do it.

If it's such a bright idea, why can't NY and CA do it? They're literally the size and population of many other countries. In the US, the states are free to do whatever they want with wage and employment laws, so long as it doesn't violate the constitution. If CA wants to set the minimum wage to $30/hr + 2 weeks mandatory PTO, they are 100% free to do it. It's pretty much a single party state at this point.

Other countries are able to support higher labor rates because they have protectionist tariffs, such as the VAT. But if the US wants to raise tariffs, all of a sudden we're racist idiots.

Anyway, a lot of what's perceived to be wrong with the US can easily be solved at the state level, but turns out nobody actually wants to foot the bill for these things.

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

#97

Post by tomschlick »

zwkrt wrote: post #94
tomschlick wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because generally taking money from others which is meant to be for people on hard times, and giving nothing back in return is looked down upon. As it should be.

But all these sentiments are wrapped up in the way things are now. Why is welfare only meant for people who have fallen on hard times? I would think that working at McDonalds is a kind of vindictive welfare for people who have fallen on hard times, and UBI is a lot more humanitarian than making someone’s life a living hell because a large company has convinced us their employees aren’t indentured servants.

> Why is welfare only meant for people who have fallen on hard times?

Because not making enough to support yourself is hard times. You should be actively working to get out of that. Go to school, get a better job, get off welfare. There are tens of thousands of jobs that pay very very well (welding, plumbing, construction, programming, etc). They are begging for people to apply.

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

#98

Post by tomschlick »

throwaway_law wrote: post #95
tomschlick wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its funny how the anti-UBI people always couch their arguments against UBI as in the best interest of irresponsible poor single mothers That's done because those same cases will be used by legislators to justify reinstating these programs after UBI kills them. When they need to drum up public support they always tug at the heartstrings. > what do you do now when a mother of 4 doesn't qualify for SNAP or housing ass…

>Second, you seem to think removing SNAP, housing credits, and others and replacing it with $1k/mo would work. No that is only one potential implementation of UBI, and generally the only one acknowledged by the Anti-UBI crowd (in a fear mongering sort of way). >I'd argue most of those benefits are worth way more in many cases. In fiscal year 2017, the average SNAP household received about $254 a month, or about $1 pe…

> No that is only one potential implementation of UBI, and generally the only one acknowledged by the Anti-UBI crowd (in a fear mongering sort of way).

Because it's the most likely to be implemented and is the only one being touted by presidential candidates.

> And my understanding with housing is 19 Million people are eligible/qualify, but only 25% get assistance

Is that 25% get approved out of 19 million applying, or just 19 million are eligible but most dont apply? That's an important distinction.

> Those numbers are very consistent with the percentage of wealth owned by these groups.

You're talking about wealth, I'm talking about investments. Taxing capital gains at a higher rate would just lead to less investment. Less real estate being built which in turn means higher housing prices, less VC funding so less opportunity for jobs, etc. It's taxed lower because it's a higher risk.

> That seems totally arbitrary

It's not. At no point does the government deserve more money than I do for my own work. Yes the government provides that safety net, schools, roads, etc but that is paid for on an individual level way before 50%.

I agree that we need to strengthen laws that allow companies to hide money, but at the same time every single one of us tries to pay the lowest amount every year come tax time; so I can't blame corps for doing the same.

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

#99

Post by mfer »

simias wrote: post #43
mfer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I agree that a society needs to have some shared values codified in laws. Things like not killing each other are great examples.

But, are shared values the same as good and bad? We generally consider certain forms of lying to be bad but they are not illegal. And, not everyone agrees on those. So they aren't entirely shared. If we go down the rabbit hole of reason and logic on this it's not so simple.

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

#100

Post by smallgovt »

ericmcer wrote: post #93
throwaway_law wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No other labour law required. Simple competition sorts it out. We have seen how no labor laws combined with competition works, we get: 80 hour work weeks with no over time, no benefits, dangerous work conditions, and even exploitative child labor. There is legitimate use of contractors in lieu of employees, but UBER and gig economy as a whole are very hiring what are clearly employees, under the law, as contractors…

I think free market forces would work better if we had a culture that was less work centric. We have created a culture that places high value on work ethic, income, and personal achievement. Those are great things, but they are also great qualities for employers to exploit. If we viewed overworking, putting in 60 hour weeks or doing risky work for more money as something unhealthy and greedy, rather than as commendab…

The class of people who have bandwidth to worry about values like work ethic and personal achievement aren't the ones who are being exploited by employee vs IC misclassification.
Post reply on HN