561–570 of 602 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not just pay them more? Seems like a convoluted way to structure a pay increase.
That might create a pressure from employers where employees are expected to stay in their seats the whole year. The key is that employees are required to take the time off. That requirement means it's never possible to question it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To cast your shed-building example in the Uber model: * You submit a desire to build a shed to a market-making company that controls much of the market * The market-maker sets a price you will be billed * The market-maker alerts nearby builders of a construction project - without the location - without the project cost - without the project plans * A builder (capriciously) clicks "accept project" and travels to your…
Please stop abusing code formatting for just about anything -Mobile users
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not price negotiation really at all because uber can and does kick people off the platform for not accepting rides. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-uber-drivers-get-deactiv...
That says they get kicked off for canceling too many rides. Accepting a ride and then canceling it is different than not accepting it to begin with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd add to this that both Uber/Lyft try and hide the price from you before you accept and penalize you for declining/canceling too many ride
Not true with Uber. It depends on the jurisdiction/market. The way it works in California is not how it works country- or worldwide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The amount of hang wringing in this thread to ignore this simple reality and defend their darling uber is kind of disgusting. Now id just wish law makers wake up and regulate paypal et al as banks.
Yes, because banking regulation works so well. coff 2008 coff coff .
Anyway, even the banking circa 2008 story is not simple.
The banking "regulators" in action at the time were central basically two sets of institutions, with kinda unrelated goals. The first & primary is "central banking," which uses banking regulation and stuff to stabilise currency value (inflation targeting). The second institution is things like the SEC,"consumer" protection against fraud.
The reason the currency regulator(s) get all the attention, independent authority and such is monetary history. Currencies crashed a lot, even gold & gold standard ones.^ In recent decades, this is rare. Even during the crisis, we saw very little hyperinflation around the world.
Maybe they shouldn't have this mandate. Maybe different monetary policy would be better. But, I think it's hard to deny that the big-daddy financial regulators (central bankers) do the job they were built to do successfully... currencies are stable, even under very large debt loads.
The job you give the regulator matters.
^yes, yes, controversial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That might create a pressure from employers where employees are expected to stay in their seats the whole year. The key is that employees are required to take the time off. That requirement means it's never possible to question it.
That makes sense for a full time employee. That does not make sense when there is no set schedule to begin with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether people work at McDonald's or Uber, or are homeless, everybody should be able to lead lives with dignity.
Sure, nobody said anything against that. How is that relevant to this discussion?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is a leap from a frying pan into a near identical frying pan with a slightly different four letter logo on it much of a choice?
If you only have a few hours to work here and there I would say having the choice to go drive for a service is a good thing, not a "frying pan". Would you prefer to take away that option for these people? I don't see your point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Net result for companies: building big overnight temporary teams out of contractors e.g. for 6-12 month projects are vastly less likely to do so, for fear that at some future date, the tax man could claw back a year's worth of tax for e.g. 20 contractors on the same project Why shouldn't the companies be paying the required taxes for the 6-12 months exactly? It sounds like they are doing temporary employment. In ot…
It eliminates the sizeable premium that previously attracted skilled labour to the instability of contracting. Without premium, why bother with the risk? FWIW, prior to the recent change, I believe the situation had been the status quo since well into the 90s. I only started contracting circa 2007
And if that premium only existed because the company wasn't having to pay the employment taxes and benefits that they should, then it deserves to go away. It was tax avoidance, not an actual premium.