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

741–750 of 754 posts

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

#741

Post by OCASM »

moate wrote: post #609
OCASM wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the trade off is being employed vs being unemployed. You can demand people pay you more for a service but you can't force them to hire you in the first place.

>>No, the trade off is being employed vs being unemployed. For some people, yes. But we're looking at the laborers as a whole, not the individuals (and my specific example was more from the perspective of the managers at a company with a limited budget for employees). Some people will go from "contractor job" to no job. Other people will go from "contractor job" to "employee job". Uber still needs drivers. They're no…

Some people will benefit while others will get screwed. Is a few earning more better than more having a job?

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

#742

Post by dangerface »

blackflame7000 wrote: post #576
mfer wrote: post #238

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?

School and society both teach that you should work hard at a job to make a living. It's the fundamental of economics.

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

#743

Post by iamgopal »

whiddershins wrote: post #246

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…

Life goes in a cycle. A new tech, invention ( e.g. Bitcoin ) comes and blooms until it starting to affect government revenue, from that point onwards people in power find a way to regulate it for greater good. The tech becomes boring, intelligence search for more novel solutions. History repeats itself.

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

#744

Post by dmode »

paggle wrote: post #78
toomuchtodo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems exceedingly unlikely to occur, regardless of ad spend, in a state as progressive politically as California (similar to AirBnB’s tone deaf failed ad campaign in San Francisco). This assumes gig companies haven’t exhausted their runway by then. Humorously, Uber and Lyft thought they might extinguish taxis if they waited them out long enough, and then the California government did the same to them.

Being profoundly unqualified to evaluate legislation, the electorate is highly susceptible to well-crafted advertising on ballot measures and can easily end up voting for something that they don't philosophically agree with. This is why direct democracy is generally considered a failed concept and why California's state administration is generally considered a failure, propped up only by the nearly incomprehensible a…

California's state administration is considered a failure ? by whom ? By constituents who continue to send supermajorities of the same party ?

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

#745

Post by dmode »

robomartin wrote: post #437

This is an Atlas Shrugged moment, if I’ve ever seen one. I know Uber and Lyft would not do it because they are public companies and other reasons. Yet, it is my opinion, that they should. They should fire everyone in CA. Why? Because this is preposterous. These companies started with the premise that people could sign-up to monetize free time by driving others using their vehicles. That was the deal, the contract, if…

Thank god you are not running any companies. Uber and Lyft's 25% of their revenues come from California. They will not exist without California.

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

#746

Post by robomartin »

dmode wrote: post #745
robomartin wrote: post #437

This is an Atlas Shrugged moment, if I’ve ever seen one. I know Uber and Lyft would not do it because they are public companies and other reasons. Yet, it is my opinion, that they should. They should fire everyone in CA. Why? Because this is preposterous. These companies started with the premise that people could sign-up to monetize free time by driving others using their vehicles. That was the deal, the contract, if…

Thank god you are not running any companies. Uber and Lyft's 25% of their revenues come from California. They will not exist without California.

Quite to the contrary my friend. I have been running businesses my entire life.

You must have missed the part where I said they won’t do it.

In business there’s often a huge gap between what you should do for a higher cause and the reality of staying in business. A simple example of this are car companies. I guarantee you all of them want to go electric. I also guarantee you they know they would go out of business if they rushed into it right now.

In the Uber/Lyft case the greater good is to take a stance that favors free markets. However, as you correctly point out, this would come with potentially severe consequences.

My guess is they might take it to the courts. Long term, they’ll move to self-driving cars. In the end the outcome for drivers will be worse. Which is what often happens when government sticks it’s paws into a market.

Same will happen to the rental market in CA.

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

#747

Post by smsm42 »

mjevans wrote: post #637
criddell wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to rebuild US healthcare system to look like Canadian or any of the European ones would not be as easy as just public agreeing on something Why not? Canada didn't always have their healthcare system. Canadians just agreed on something and suddenly they had it.

I think the segment on late night TV that I watched used to be called "street walking with jay lenno", or something along those lines. The premise was pretty much: take a question that might sensibly appear on a GED test (highschool graduation equivalency, without the class credits), that probably at least 50% of the viewers (so adults that could afford a TV and stay awake until midnight / had just finished watching…

Here's an example for you: recent headline from NYT: Which Health Policies Actually Work? We Rarely Find Out https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/upshot/which-health-polic...

Yeah that's right - nobody knows which healthcare programs work. Neither literal idiots, nor uneducated hillbillies, nor ECON101 graduates, nor PHD-bearing professors, nor politicians, nor NYT journalists, nobody has any good information. On a topic as important as which healthcare policies actually work. So what's the point on insisting on ECON101? There's just no information about it, and nobody cares about getting one.

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

#748

Post by defterGoose »

subhobroto wrote: post #696
defterGoose wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can see you are getting too tied up in the existing perspective you have, so I recommend you step back and revisit our discussion with a third person's perspective. 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…

Ad hominems really don't help any arguments you have to make. Nor do a handful of tenuous analogies.

The government is not a singular entity, but it does exercise some semblance of self-consistent control. The drug/insurance companies have no interest in minimizing their profits aside from following regulations so as to limit potential liability. If the drug companies can successfully lobby for less control then the government's bargaining power is impaired de facto.

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

#749

Post by subhobroto »

defterGoose wrote: post #748
subhobroto wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see you are getting too tied up in the existing perspective you have, so I recommend you step back and revisit our discussion with a third person's perspective. 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…

Ad hominems really don't help any arguments you have to make. Nor do a handful of tenuous analogies. The government is not a singular entity, but it does exercise some semblance of self-consistent control. The drug/insurance companies have no interest in minimizing their profits aside from following regulations so as to limit potential liability. If the drug companies can successfully lobby for less control then the…

I repeat: if you have a point to make, prioritize it over pointing out my grammar or qualifying the way I present my comment.

Really, say it because I have no idea what your position is and we have been communicating a bit at this point.

You have repeated twice now that the government's bargaining power, is impaired. Yes, that's what I said in my parent comment 2 days ago. Why are you repeating what I said, to me?

No, my previous comment was not ad hominem because I didn't know the position you were taking and I still dont know what position you have on the matter. I noticed tunnel vision on your part that was imparing the quality of the conversation and I suggested a technique I often follow myself. If you want to argue the semantics of an ad hominem, I am out of time.

Is your point that the government's bargaining power, which is impaired, less than the bargaining power citizens like you and I possess?

To clarify: My point, with the tenuous analogies included, is: the government's bargaining power, even after being severly impaired, is still superior to the bargaining power citizens like you and I possess when it comes to negotiating the prices of drugs that we need to get and be better.

Other developed countries recognize this and exploit it to the benefit of their citizens. Perhaps we should think of something similar but outside government.

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

#750

Post by jackmodern »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #156
Barrin92 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is this supposed to be an unintended consequence? We all know that the cheap rides of Uber are (partially) the result of them dodging around employer obligations.

And also losing $1B per quarter subsidizing cheap rides for growth and market share. There just really isn't that much demand for a $20 2-mile ride in the city. Uber has show that there is a HUGE demand for the same trip at $4.

you ever take a lyft or uber in NYC? you'd be surprised how many people are willing to pay those prices.
Post reply on HN