Live data from Hacker News

California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

nytimes.com

751–754 of 754 posts

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

#751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Neither of us have the need to get further bogged down on this. My point of course is that functionally the government only has this bargaining power if 1: the majority of the people in the government see a change in the status quo as desirable, and 2: The will of those same people can't be subverted through means such as excessive lobbying. If both of those conditions aren't met, then saying that this bargaining power exists is essentially meaningless. If that wasn't clear from context, well maybe no amount of clarification can help.

On a side note, questioning someone's motivation and/or ability to comprehend the relevant information and form opinions based on it is definitely a form of ad hominem, and definitely not the right way to start an attempt to clarify.

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

#752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt you are thinking of that “cost” properly … no one seems to accurately as far as I have been able to tell over several decades now. The whole debate over healthcare is dominated by one of two different mindsets; either based in utter ignorance and wishful thinking, or nefarious and malicious manipulation and conning. The people lauding the wonderful beautified “universal healthcare” (which, btw, they lied to y…

Australia has a comparable tax burden to the USA and also has universal public healthcare with the option to purchase additional private coverage. The public system guarantees that all conditions will be treated, but you may have to wait. The private system gives you considerable flexibility and, because patients who would normally cause adverse selection fall more heavily onto the public system, is much cheaper than…

Thanks for the reply, even if you are seemingly being snarky about it. Yes, Australia has a similar tax burden overall, even though it is still higher, especially since it is way more heavily weighted towards the middle class with $37,001 AUD already breaking into the 32.5% tax bracket (for reference; in the USA you move from 12% to 22% tax bracket at $39,000 USD/ $57,000 AUD ... which would add up to a massive difference in take home pay difference ... and that on lower AUS salaries)

You may claim "is much cheaper", but reality is that you just don't know and are not being told the full cost of what you are being forced to pay for.

I don't know what you think you are explaining to me, the USA also has a public and private retirement planning system, and again, AUS is not exactly as bad off as Europe; but reality is that you don't see the freight train that is barreling down on you. The thing that makes the USA, AUS, and EU very very difficult to compare for even the supposed experts, is that there are so many modulating variables. Not only are they variables, but they qualitatively modulate things. For an example, you think your system works great in AUS and you have lower taxes and a public health care system that works ... what you don't consider, intentionally ignore, or are propagandized not to even be able to take in; are things like the fact that you don't have huge populations that drain the life, energy, focus, and money out of the USA by the billions. For example an estimate of the cost of various existing welfare programs in the USA ... not ones where you even get something at overpriced and inefficient rates like universal healthcare ... costs the American tax payer approaching the amount of the whole GDP of all of Australia. Think about that, the money equivalent of work, energy, and focus of the whole Australian economy, what every single man, woman, and child does in the economy; goes towards welfare programs to support people that are drains on society. They are even largely not only not contributors to society, spending a whole life of being a net overwhelming negative contributor, but increasingly they are not even American citizens that are draining the country.

The point is, you can sit there and chide big mean America for not providing health care, while also not having any idea what you pay for that, nor the overwhelming cost it would be to take care of everyone in the USA, in addition to the fact that you take for granted that the US tax payer funds the protection that keeps China from a full on invasion and even allows you to engage in free trade at the American tax payer's expense. And all that while you spit in American's face. Reality is that none of this math makes any sense or adds up in any manner when all the full accounting is done. Do you want to pay for the health care pampering of someone that chose to get morbidly obese while you lives healthy and saved your money instead of buying food with it? Reality is that if the USA were to adopt some universal healthcare system, it would bankrupt the USA and trigger a global economic collapse as all the fools don't realize just how dependent they are on the USA, and then they would also find themselves without the massive military that keeps them safe from others more than willing to conquer them when given the chance. Choices have consequences, my friend, and I do not think you have the ability to recognize the precarious situation the world is in as types like you keep sawing at the branch you are sitting on.

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

#753
post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to encourage drivers to drive enough to offset overhead costs, there are other ways besides traditional advance time-slot based scheduling. For example: (these are not mutually exclusive) - Setup incentives (e.g. bonuses) so that drivers get paid better after they have offset the overhead costs for a month. Perhaps this could be setup as a sliding scale or threshold system. - Reward (but do not mandate) d…

> Setup incentives (e.g. bonuses) so that drivers get paid better after they have offset the overhead costs for a month. A bonus increases cost, meaning the drivers need to work even more hours. > Reward (but do not mandate) drivers for scheduling certain times/dates in advance (e.g. to optimize driver supply) Again, offering rewards to drivers for driving in certain scheduled times means that drivers need to bring i…

Re: "I think it's more likely is that..."

I'm struck by how many times you refer to rather blunt instruments (e.g. "scheduling drivers in advance" / "blocks of time in which they need to drive" / "quotas to meet"). There is a much wider canvas of tools available to guide and shape behavior, as I would guess you understand. (You seem to use language like an economist or business analyst, so you likely know about various incentive structures.)

Given how cutting-edge and innovative the ride-sharing companies claim to be, I don't think they can also authentically claim that they cannot find smart, incentive-based ways to work within slight adjustments to the business and regulatory environment. Market-making and matching algorithms are powerful, interesting, and applicable here, in a wide variety of regulatory configurations. In my view, the "ride-sharing" companies (after all, the driver is "sharing" her car with the passenger... right!) should leverage their people and infrastructure as a competitive advantage and, well, innovate.

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

#754
post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to encourage drivers to drive enough to offset overhead costs, there are other ways besides traditional advance time-slot based scheduling. For example: (these are not mutually exclusive) - Setup incentives (e.g. bonuses) so that drivers get paid better after they have offset the overhead costs for a month. Perhaps this could be setup as a sliding scale or threshold system. - Reward (but do not mandate) d…

They are employees now they don't like the shift they get fired.

Well, that's one (unnecessarily rigid) way to structure it, one that (in the language of economics), is inefficient, meaning that it misses out on possibilities for gains for both sides.

To be clear, I don't necessarily advocate for classical libertarian views of economics. [1] I also think in terms of balancing economic power (i.e. leverage) with goals of promoting human prosperity. Just because a company finds market success (temporarily [2]) in no way gives them moral or political authority to define ethical concerns. They exist in a broader context of social expectations, which must include norms around how people are treated.

[1] I like the quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." To put a point on it, don't blindly follow the tenants of an overly simplistic theory of economics (libertarianism) when it clearly doesn't ring true to your own conscience.

[2] I say "temporarily" because let's remember that most businesses only last a small number of years relative to the length of written history.

Post reply on HN